ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Energy Efficiency

Tom Blenkinsop: What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

Chris Williamson: What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

Gregory Barker: The thoughts of the House will obviously be elsewhere today, in remembering our late colleague Paul Goggins, on the day of his funeral, and I associate myself and my colleagues with the many tributes that have already been paid across the House.
	The coalition is committed to transforming the energy efficiency of Britain’s homes and helping consumers control their energy bills. The green deal and energy company obligation have together improved over a third of a million homes in their first 10 months of operation, but even more importantly we have established the conditions to grow a genuinely economically sustainable energy efficiency market as part of our long-term plan to transform British homes.

Tom Blenkinsop: I, like everyone in the House, would like to associate myself with the Minister’s comments about Paul Goggins.
	The Minister said last March that he would be having sleepless nights if fewer than 10,000 people signed up for a green deal by the end of 2013: just 1,030 households have signed up. Will he confirm that at this current rate of progress it will take until 2023 for his target to be met?

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman is right. We anticipated that more green deal finance plans would have been taken out by this stage, but we have seen, and been taken aback by, how popular green deal measures have been. There have now been more than 117,000 green deal assessments, and new research published this morning shows that only 5% of people are not installing green deal measures as a result. If people choose to pay for
	these measures themselves, that is a good thing. The main thing is that people are installing green deal measures using green deal installers and that the green deal market is off to a good start.

Chris Williamson: It would be helpful if the Minister supported Labour’s energy price freeze, but clearly the long-term solution required to end the scandal of people dying because they live in cold homes is a massive energy efficiency programme. As we know, the green deal has been an abject failure, with 1,030 households signing up so far and a 93% fall in the number of loft installations last year. Will he explain why his Department’s policies are failing so badly?

Gregory Barker: Labour’s price freeze is a con, and everybody now realises that it would harm investment and damage the interests of consumers and hard-working families. Fuel poverty is a long-term challenge, but when the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State fuel poverty rose to record highs, just as it did in every year of the last Parliament under Labour. The coalition still has a lot more to do, but the fuel poverty figures have been falling, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman should read less rhetoric and more facts.

Alan Beith: May I press my right hon. Friend to put extra effort into those rural areas where poorer people predominantly live in solid-wall, stone-built properties and where, because they are off the gas grid, they are dependent on expensive fuels, such as oil and liquefied petroleum gas?

Gregory Barker: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. The coalition has put new emphasis on tackling the deep problem of fuel poverty in rural areas. We are looking at this with renewed vigour and will come forward with further improvements to our fuel poverty schemes to ensure they reach those who need help in rural areas.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Precisely how many measures have been installed under the energy company obligation or the green deal among those special rural sub-populations and off-grid users?

Gregory Barker: I am afraid I cannot off the top of my head give the specific figure, but I will happily write to the hon. Gentleman with it and make it available to the rest of the House. I can tell hon. Members, however, that we are doing, and are determined to do, much better than the previous Labour Government.

Michael Weir: One way to increase energy efficiency is to have modern boilers. The current affordable warrant schemes under the ECO, however, do not include home fuel oil or LPG boilers, discriminating against those in rural areas who are off the gas grid. The Minister has said that the coalition wants to do something for rural areas, so will he look again and ensure that, as he has promised before, all such schemes will be technologically neutral?

Gregory Barker: We take this issue very seriously. We are meeting suppliers again next month, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be progress. That has eluded Governments in the past, but we are determined to make progress.

Lyn Brown: The over-75s are most likely to live in homes with poor energy efficiency, most vulnerable to the cold weather and least likely to switch energy supplier, so they often pay more than they need to. Given the Prime Minister’s promise to put everyone on the cheapest tariffs, this does nothing to help 90% of the people, so will the Minister back Labour’s plan to put all over-75s on the cheapest tariff?

Gregory Barker: The Labour Government had 13 years in which to legislate and sort out the problem but did nothing. We have legislated to put everybody on to the cheapest tariff for their needs. This winter, more than 2 million households, including over a million of the poorest pensioners, will automatically receive the warm home discount of up to £135.

Jim Shannon: The boiler replacement scheme for Northern Ireland cost £12 million over the three years; it has been an outstanding success and achieved the high energy efficiency targets that were set. Will the Minister have discussions with the responsible Minister in Northern Ireland with a view to reintroduce a similar boiler scheme here on the mainland UK?

Gregory Barker: We already have live and up and running a cashback scheme to help people with boiler replacements. We think this is an important market and we are looking at it as part of our stamp duty rebate bonus to help drive the green deal and see what more can be done in the boiler market. I am going to Northern Ireland next month; if there is an opportunity to discuss this issue, I will certainly take it.

Fuel Poverty

Stephen Hepburn: What steps his Department is taking to tackle fuel poverty.

Gregory Barker: The coalition is committed to tackling fuel poverty. In 10 months, the green deal and energy company obligation have transformed more than 336,000 homes, of which about 250,000 are low income and vulnerable households, helping to cut people’s bills and keep them warm. In addition, this winter more than 2 million households, including more than 1 million of the poorest pensioners, will receive the warm home discount, worth up to £135.

Stephen Hepburn: Since this Government came to power, the big six energy companies have made an unprecedented profit of up to £3.5 billion, while household gas and electricity bills have almost doubled. When are the Government going to catch up with the Labour party and the general public, take these greedy vultures into hand and freeze bills, rather than give what is effectively a taxpayer’s subsidy to the energy companies to give us a miserly £1 a week off our bills?

Gregory Barker: It is a great shame that the hon. Gentleman did not have that view when Labour was in government. Let us not forget that Labour created the big six. There were 14 major energy companies when Labour took office and those were driven into the big six. The big six are Labour’s creation. We are on the side
	of competition, technological change and the consumer; under this Government, we are putting the consumer first.

Charles Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend look at taking some specific measures to tackle fuel poverty for those who are off the gas grid? Will he encourage the use of syndicates, which can buy oil and LPG more cheaply? Will he look again at whether this vital sector should be regulated by Ofgem, and will he explore whether some of the revenues from future shale gas development could be used directly to extend the gas grid?

Gregory Barker: I take my hon. Friend’s points extremely seriously, not least because he did a great deal for this group of people when he was an energy Minister. Speaking as someone who is off the gas grid, I am delighted to say that I recently joined my local community’s syndicate for buying heating oil, and it has delivered a very good price. I encourage others to do the same. The good point that my hon. Friend raises is under review. We are looking at more effective data matching to identify those in fuel poverty in rural areas who are often much harder to find than those in similar circumstances in urban areas. We are absolutely on it; I can assure my hon. Friend of that.

Lilian Greenwood: There was anger and deep disappointment in my constituency this week when British Gas announced that, as a direct result of the Minister’s changes to the ECO, it is pulling out of the scheme that was due to deliver external wall insulation to up to 4,700 concrete houses in Clifton by March 2015. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to meet me and local partners urgently to discuss whether there is a possible future for this scheme?

Gregory Barker: I will certainly meet the hon. Lady, and I shall be happy to look at the matter in more detail. It is primarily a matter for British Gas, which has an obligation to deliver, at scale, measures to help the fuel poor, but we are determined to ensure that those measures are enforced.
	The ECO is now in good health, and we have extended it to 2017. Unlike the programmes introduced by the last Government, which were very stop-go and hand-to-mouth—for instance, the carbon emissions reduction target was initially scheduled to apply to one year but was then extended for another year and then another—the ECO will provide investor certainty until 2017, which is good news for the fuel poor.

Guy Opperman: Identifying those who live in fuel-poor households is of paramount importance, and Members of Parliament, the Church and credit unions have a role to play in that. We in Northumberland invented oil-buying clubs in this country, and we now have 13 of them, covering almost all the off-grid provision. We have produced a leaflet of which we are particularly proud, which explains how people can reduce energy bills, and we are sending it to individual households.

Gregory Barker: I commend my hon. Friend for his excellent work on an issue that is so important to his constituents. I should love to see a copy of that leaflet.
	We are keen to find out more about the ideas that my hon. Friend is pioneering with his community, and to learn from good practice and spread it throughout the country. Perhaps we shall have an opportunity to do that when we launch our community energy strategy.

Power Companies (Bad Weather Preparedness)

Iain McKenzie: What recent discussions he has had with power companies on their preparedness to deal with bad weather events.

Edward Davey: Let me begin by saying that our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Paul Goggins as we all celebrate his life and superb contribution on his funeral day.
	I met the distribution network operators and key industry players on 8 January to discuss the power cuts over the Christmas period. I have organised a review of what worked and what did not, and I am due to receive a report before the end of March.
	While there are clearly lessons to be learned, especially in regard to communications with customers, I want to record again my thanks to the thousands of people who worked so hard over their Christmases, mostly in difficult circumstances, to look after and reconnect those who were affected by severe storms and flooding.

Iain McKenzie: Who is responsible for ensuring that power companies are sufficiently prepared for bad weather, and have enough staff to be able to deal with both the weather and any power cuts that may result from it? Is that his Department‘s job, or is it Ofgem’s?

Edward Davey: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Ofgem regulates the distribution network operators to ensure that they perform adequately, but the whole industry does a huge amount of work—along with Ofgem and my Department—to ensure that proper preparations are made. Between 24 and 28 December, unprecedented severe weather affected all parts of the country, and it was not possible to make preparations that rely on mutual aid because all the distribution network operators needed their staff. We certainly have lessons to learn from that unprecedented set of events.

Anne McIntosh: Our thoughts and prayers are with Paul Goggins and his family today.
	In 2007, when we experienced severe surface water flooding, there was an audit of all the critical infrastructure, and a decision was made to move those who were most vulnerable to flooding to higher ground. Would another such audit be timely following the unprecedented flooding that occurred over the Christmas period?

Edward Davey: If an audit is recommended in the review that I have instigated, we will of course proceed with it. I must stress, however, that more than 750,000 homes lost power between 24 and 28 December, and 93% of them were reconnected within 24 hours. I do not, of course, underestimate the difficulties experienced by people whose Christmases were ruined and who lost power for more than 48 hours—15,000 houses were affected in that way—but I think that we should see
	them in proportion. The industry did a very good job, and its preparedness has greatly improved in recent years.

Barry Sheerman: Paul Goggins used to sit next to me in the Chamber, and the difference between us when we used to make trouble on a Thursday was that he was nicer than me. He was a true Christian, whereas I am more the curmudgeonly type, but I am thinking of him today.
	I worry about this question. I think that it should be seen in context. Is the new Minister for Portsmouth on side? Is he aware that flooding and the change in our weather patterns have something to do with climate change? Has he looked at the BP long-term survey of energy use, which was published this morning and which points to a very changed world market? That will also have an impact on our weather.

Edward Davey: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is curmudgeonly at all, and I welcome his question. I think it is important to think about whether events are connected to climate change. As he will know, climate change scientists are reluctant on this because the evidence does not suggest that particular weather events are connected with climate change, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fifth annual report last year showed that there is increasing concern because both the theory and practice of climate change analysis suggests that there are likely to be more severe weather events if we do not tackle it.

Shale Gas

Andrew Jones: What steps he is taking to promote the exploration of UK shale gas resources.

Michael Fallon: The Government have taken a number of recent steps to promote shale gas exploration. We confirmed fiscal measures in the autumn statement to incentivise exploration activity, we published a regulatory road map in December setting out clearly for operators the regulatory requirements for shale gas projects, and the Prime Minister announced 100% business rate retention for local authorities for shale projects on Monday. We are also consulting on the strategic environment assessment for a potential 14th onshore licensing round, which would enable further areas of the country to be explored.

Andrew Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, far from being a bribe, the decision to allow councils to keep 100% of business rates is about ensuring that local communities and local people can benefit and get a fair share of the development in their area?

Michael Fallon: Yes, it is important that the benefits of shale gas exploration should not just go to the economy more widely, or to the companies doing the exploration or, indeed, wholly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is important that local people and local communities share in those benefits as well.

Graham Jones: The Prime Minister has said the Government are going all out for shale, but the Treasury is taking a whopping 62% while offering a minuscule offer with business rates. The Minister’s
	Department will have received a letter last week from Lancashire MPs—united, cross-party—and Labour-controlled Lancashire county council opposing the business rates offer. I think he received comments from Members on his own side, too—from the hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) saying it is “pathetic and insulting” and from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), who said it is simply not enough. When is the Minister going to address this issue of fairness?

Michael Fallon: We will, of course, reply to the letter from the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues from Lancashire. However, the decision to give local authorities 100% business rate retention could mean up to £1.75 million a year per well site, and the decision to allocate 1% of the revenues to local communities could mean up to £10 million for a well site. These are formidable sums, and I think it is right that local communities share in any of the benefits that arise from shale.

Peter Lilley: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that nearly 200 wells in this country and over 2 million wells worldwide have used hydraulic fracturing technology and not a single person has been poisoned by contaminated sub-surface water supplies and not a single building has been damaged by the resultant minuscule earth tremors?

Michael Fallon: I can certainly confirm that hydraulic fracturing is a well-established technique. It has been used the world over. We also have experience of onshore drilling in this country for nearly 100 years now, since the end of the first world war, and hydraulic fracturing will be permitted only if it is safe not only for those involved but for the environment and the local community.

Caroline Lucas: On Tuesday the Prime Minister said people objecting to shale gas on climate grounds are irrational, yet climate scientist experts and investors all warn that the vast majority of existing fossil fuel reserves must remain underground—they are unburnable if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change—and just today we hear of the BP report that shale gas will not help cut emissions and that essentially fuel switching does not make a difference as coal just gets exported and is emitted elsewhere. In the light of that, will the Minister tell us whether he agrees with the Prime Minister: does he think climate scientists are irrational as well?

Michael Fallon: I think it is wise for all members of the Government to agree with the Prime Minister. Shale gas is one of the greener fossil fuels, and the hon. Lady certainly ought to support its extraction rather than that of coal. We need to reduce our dependence on volatile wholesale international prices for gas and oil, and we need more home-grown energy here under our own control.

Martin Horwood: A recent American report has suggested that, apart from the absolute volumes of water used in fracking, 90% of the water used remains beneath the surface and is removed from the local water cycle. Has that environmental impact been assessed by the Department, and if not, can it be?

Michael Fallon: We will certainly look at all reports and international expertise in this area, but Water UK—the industry body for water—has looked at the management and treatment of water. Let me reassure the House that hydraulic fracturing will be allowed in this country only if it is absolutely safe for the environment, and that of course includes the protection of ground water supply.

Tom Greatrex: First, may I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their kind words about our friend and colleague, Paul Goggins, whose funeral takes place today? He was a regular contributor to these questions, and he was as assiduous in standing up for his constituents in fuel poverty as he was on so many other issues during his time in the House. As you will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) are absent this morning, along with many other Members, in order to attend the funeral mass. I know that the whole House will join them in remembering Paul’s tremendous record of public service, and in sending our deepest condolences to his family and loved ones at this very sad time.
	May I ask the Minister to tell the House how many jobs he expects to arise from shale gas extraction in the UK?

Michael Fallon: The survey conducted by the Institute of Directors estimated that more than 70,000 jobs could be created by the shale gas industry. We are in the initial stages of the industry, and we expect to have two to three years of exploration, so it is not possible at this stage to make a firm forecast of the number of jobs, but that is the Institute of Directors’ best estimate. In other countries where shale gas has been successfully extracted, however, there have been huge benefits to the economy and reductions in household and business bills.

Tom Greatrex: I thank the Minister for that reply, repeating the figure that was used by the Prime Minister, by Tory central office and by others earlier this week. Does the Minister understand that addressing the legitimate environmental concerns about shale gas will require the Government to be careful, proportionate and responsible regarding what they say about a yet unrecovered energy source? In that context, will he explain why neither he nor—as far as I am aware—his Secretary of State has referred this morning to the findings of the detailed strategic environmental assessment undertaken by AMEC on behalf of his Department? Those findings put the likely figure for full-time equivalent jobs at between 16,000 and 32,000 during peak construction in the next licensing round.

Michael Fallon: There have been a number of estimates, but, as I have said, it is far too early to be sure about the pace of shale gas extraction when we are still at the exploration stage. We have seen estimates from AMEC, and I have quoted the estimate from the Institute of Directors.

Energy Bills

Paul Farrelly: What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

Mary Glindon: What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

Emma Lewell-Buck: What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

Edward Davey: We are very concerned about rising energy bills, so we are helping consumers in three ways: with direct help with money off their bills; with stronger competition; and through energy efficiency programmes. Last month, we secured an agreement with the energy companies for an average £50 cut off this year’s bill, and I am pleased to tell the House that my Department’s own work for greater competition for consumers will be enhanced following the appointment of Clive Maxwell, the current chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading.

Paul Farrelly: Frankly, the autumn statement was a great disappointment. Will the Government accept that they could do far more to help businesses and consumers who are facing crippling energy bills? The limited changes to green taxes are far too little, too late. Bills will still rise, and simply telling people to shop around is not a proper answer.

Edward Davey: I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. People are switching providers very effectively. In November last year, the month after the price rises were announced, 614,000 people used the benefits of the competition that we have enhanced to get better deals and save hundreds of pounds. When it comes to records on bills, the provisional 2013 gas and electricity figures have now been published and we can make a comparison between this Government’s record and that of the last Labour Government. Between 2000 and 2010—the last Parliament—gas bills rose by an average of 12% a year; in this Parliament, they have risen by an average of 6%.

Mary Glindon: A new report by the Children’s Society says that about 5 million families are likely to turn down their heating because they cannot afford it, and children will suffer because their homes are simply too cold. Given that 3.6 million children last year thought that their homes were too cold in winter, does the Minister agree that it is now time for a price freeze to ensure that parents can keep their children warm during the cold winter months?

Edward Davey: No, I do not think it is time for a price freeze, because I do not think that will help the children the hon. Lady is talking about. We all know that Labour’s price freeze is a con and the energy companies will shove up the bills after the price freeze has ended. We want to give people permanent help, which is why the £50 average cut to people’s energy bills is welcome. In addition, we are ensuring that the warm home discount delivers £135 off bills for the most vulnerable people. That is a good record. We will be coming to the House later this year with our draft fuel poverty strategy, because we want to do more for the most vulnerable households in our society.

Emma Lewell-Buck: A man in my constituency was recently arrested for stealing food. Upon escorting him home, the police found that not only did he have nothing to eat, but he had no heating or electricity at all in his
	home. He had turned to theft out of desperation. Why does the Minister not recognise that energy prices are a huge contributor to the cost-of-living crisis which is leading to such poverty and that this situation will only get worse until the Government adopt Labour’s energy price freeze?

Edward Davey: I do not know the case that the hon. Lady talks about, but the Government are as concerned as anybody about energy prices, energy bills and the impact on people around our country. That is why we have been hyperactive in this area; we have done far more than the previous Government. I mentioned the comparisons we can now make between energy bill rises under the previous Government and under this one. As I said, gas bills went up twice as much under the previous Government, but electricity bills increased by an average of 9% in the previous Parliament whereas in this one they have increased by 4%. We know that that still means bills are going up and we need to help people, but Labour’s record in this area was shocking.

Philip Hollobone: If people are to be encouraged to switch supplier to cut their energy bills, we must make it as easy as possible for them to find an alternative supplier. One big barrier to that is utilities charging steep termination charges. Can the Department do anything to get rid of or reduce those charges?

Edward Davey: We certainly are looking at all aspects of switching to ensure that it is easier and quicker. Ofgem’s retail market review will make a big difference here and it is being implemented now, with simpler and clearer bills, and fewer tariffs. We are also working with the industry to reduce the time involved; I believe that before this Parliament finishes we will have halved the switching times, which will really help people such as my hon. Friend’s constituents.

David Heath: The Secretary of State has been reminded by colleagues from all parts of the House this morning that this is not just about electricity and gas bills, low tariffs and dual fuel discounts; it is also about people in rural areas who cannot have any of those things because they rely on liquefied petroleum gas or fuel oil. I have long argued that the worst examples of fuel poverty are faced by people who are isolated in rural areas. Does he agree? Will he make them a priority in his new fuel poverty strategy?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on this issue. It is clear that the House wants to bring it to our attention, and we are already working on it. As my colleagues have said, we need to address an issue of identification: getting good statistics and data, matching and so on. I can give an assurance that we will focus on this issue, and I invite right hon. and hon. Members to raise the matter with me and my Ministers, and bring forward ideas.

Christopher Pincher: Our constituents are rightly concerned about energy prices. So does my right hon. Friend agree that it is irresponsible for any political party to attempt carbon tax changes to the
	Energy Act 2013 in the other place, which, had they been successful, would have added £125 to our consumers’ bills?

Edward Davey: I think my hon. Friend is referring to the one issue over which the Prime Minister said to the Liaison Committee there is a difference between the two coalition parties. The £125 figure that he quotes is from the Conservative party’s website. The figure from the Committee on Climate Change on the cost of the decarbonisation target is six times less. What that shows is that we need a debate on the decarbonisation target and what the actual costs will be.

Julie Elliott: The Secretary of State said last December that his Government would reduce the average household bill next year by £50, but three of the big six energy companies are not passing on the reduction to fixed-price tariff customers. Will he confirm that for some of those customers the measures he announced will not take a single penny off their energy bills?

Edward Davey: We negotiated a deal with the big six in which they agreed to deliver a £50 average bill reduction, and that is what we expect. We were clear at the time that it was an average bill reduction, because it is impossible to ensure that it goes to every single customer. Our analysis shows that they have largely complied already, and the House can be assured that we will not let up the pressure.

Julie Elliott: So that means there are customers who will not receive a single penny off their bills. Is it not a fact that average energy bills are still at least £60 more this winter than last winter? Why will the Secretary of State not admit that he and his Government are doing nothing to stop the big six energy companies raising prices?

Edward Davey: First, every customer will get something off their bills because of the rebate that we are putting through related to renewable and social costs, so it is not true that some people will not see any reduction. Furthermore, when the hon. Lady and her colleagues talk about the big six, they forget to mention that Labour created the big six. It was when Labour messed up the reforms of the energy markets in 2001 and abolished the pool in a bad way that we saw consolidation and the big six. We are now fixing that problem.

Renewables Industry

Tim Farron: What estimate he has made of the number of jobs that will be created in the renewables industry as a result of the provisions of the Energy Act 2013.

Michael Fallon: Directly, and indirectly through supply chains, the Government’s electricity market reforms could support up to 250,000 jobs by 2020, the large majority of which will be in renewable electricity.

Tim Farron: In Westmorland, we are extremely proud of having one of the largest and most important hydro manufacturing firms in the world in Gilkes of Kendal, which is a reminder that, unlike other energy sources
	such as nuclear and shale gas, 95% of the supply chain of the hydro and tidal energy industry is British. Given that and the almost infinite potential of the industry around this island, will the Minister commit to creating tens of thousands of British jobs by making hydro and tidal energy the centrepiece of Britain’s energy policy?

Michael Fallon: I will certainly commit to supporting renewable technologies and a mix of renewable technologies. My hon. Friend will have seen that we have confirmed the strike price for tidal and wave power in the final electricity market reform delivery plan that we published in December.

Julie Elliott: Investment in low-carbon energy has halved under this Government, costing jobs and threatening our energy security. Does the Minister agree that the two best things that the Government could do to improve their woeful investment record is to set a 2030 power sector decarbonisation target and stop the internal Government rows that are creating uncertainty and killing confidence?

Michael Fallon: I must tell the hon. Lady that this country has more offshore wind than any other country in the world. We have seen half a dozen large offshore wind farms commissioned and operating, and another four are under construction this year. We are leading the way in the deployment of renewable technologies, and those renewables contributed around 15% of our electricity in the third quarter of last year.

Energy Infrastructure

Stephen Metcalfe: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of recent investment in the UK’s energy infrastructure.

Michael Fallon: Since 2011, 8% of our generating capacity has closed under European legislation, and a further 10% to 12% of current generating capacity is due to close over the decade to 2023. We must continue to invest across the energy landscape to ensure that we maintain robust infrastructure. We have agreed terms for a new nuclear power station, the first in a generation, at Hinkley Point C, and we are also ensuring that new and existing gas generation stays on the system by establishing the capacity market under the Energy Act. We will run the first auction for that later this year.

Stephen Metcalfe: Intergen is keen and ready to build a new super-efficient gas-fired power station in my constituency with Siemens as the contractor. The pension fund and Chinese owners, however, will not commit to the £500 million investment required until Intergen has won a contract to supply at the capacity auction in December. Does the Minister agree that that is causing an unnecessary delay and will he agree to meet me and Intergen to see what we can do to bring forward this important investment?

Michael Fallon: I am certainly happy to meet my hon. Friend and any potential investors and to reassure them that we are now seeing a wave of potential investment
	under the Energy Act. As I said, we plan to run the first capacity auction later this year, in which we expect considerable interest in gas-fired stations.

Albert Owen: Many people who are off grid are in fuel poverty—the figure in rural areas is almost double that in urban areas. DECC’s own figures show that there is potential for 800,000 households to be connected to the gas infrastructure. Would the Minister and his Department consider putting aside some money from shale gas exploration in a levy so that we can extend the gas grid, giving people choice and cheaper fuel?

Michael Fallon: As I explained earlier, money will be made available from shale gas exploration for local communities and it will be up to local communities to decide in which projects to invest it. We are already taking action to improve the position of those who happen to be off grid, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained, through better identification and data sharing through the agencies and by encouraging earlier and collective purchasing schemes.

Fuel Poverty

Andrew Stephenson: What steps he is taking to protect the fuel poor whilst seeking to reduce energy bills.

Gregory Barker: In December the coalition announced a package of policy changes to save hard-working families an average of £50 off their energy bills. The package also included proposals to extend the energy company obligation, which provides direct support to the fuel poor through to 2017. That gives crucial investment certainty to those rolling out our long-term plan to cut fuel poverty.

Andrew Stephenson: I thank the Minister for his answer. My constituent, Peter Chester, who runs Green World Energy Solutions, a company whose work focuses on households that qualify for ECO funding, is very concerned that the changes to ECO funding might prevent vulnerable households from being able to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. Can the Minister provide any assurances that that will not be the case?

Gregory Barker: Let me reassure my hon. Friend, who is a very effective local champion for entrepreneurs such as Mr Chester and for those struggling with high energy bills in Pendle. I assure him that the coalition has a long-term plan to slash fuel poverty. As we have extended the ECO out to 2017 and increased the number of people it will help, Green World Energy Solutions and other firms like it can now plan with real certainty to continue to improve the homes of thousands of families and help them to cut their bills.

Renewables Obligation Grace Periods

Alan Whitehead: What progress he has made in developing renewables obligation grace periods for renewable energy developers
	able to demonstrate financial closure of projects prior to March 2017 but commencing operations after that date.

Michael Fallon: The Government have consulted on grace periods for developers able to demonstrate substantial financial decisions and investments by the end of July 2014, in relation to renewable electricity projects that are expected to commission before the end of March 2017. We are analysing responses to the consultation and will issue a formal response setting out the policy on renewables obligation grace periods in due course.

Alan Whitehead: Does the Minister accept that there is considerable demand for such grace periods? Will he say now that he will agree that all qualifying projects will be given the relevant RO during the grace period? Does he accept that a far simpler way of ensuring that the substantial demand is met would be to extend the transition period between the RO and contracts for difference?

Michael Fallon: The consultation only closed a few weeks ago and we must consider all the responses carefully and ensure that the final policy has considered all views. We want to do that as quickly as possible, but it would be a little premature if I announced any conclusion today.

David Davies: Given that the ice caps have not yet melted, tropical islands have not been submerged and there has been no rise in temperatures for 16 years, is it not about time we questioned the entire concept of renewables obligations and started worrying a little more about people going into the red than about all of us going green?

Michael Fallon: We certainly worry about those who are struggling with bills, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said. We have announced a number of measures to encourage competition and easier switching between suppliers.

Angus MacNeil: Renewable energy developers in my island constituency would be helped if, instead of generators being charged to export electricity and consumers being charged to import it, the reality of a domestic island market for production for local consumption was recognised. Will the Minister and his Department look at that possibility to help ease energy bills on the islands?

Michael Fallon: I am happy to look at that specific proposal. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department has already been looking hard at the Western Isles project in general.

Sarah Newton: Constituents of mine involved in marine renewable energy are finding that the contracts for difference are attracting developers and jobs into Cornwall. Will my right hon. Friend add his support to the launch of the Plymouth city deal tomorrow, which will see Cornwall working with Plymouth to grow new renewable energy businesses, jobs and prosperity for people across the south-west?

Michael Fallon: I am very happy to welcome the Plymouth city deal, particularly the importance of energy in it. As I have said, we have confirmed the strike prices for all types of renewable energy, including wave and tidal. I think that there are some exciting prospects for the industry in Cornwall.

Wholesale Energy Market

John Robertson: What steps he is taking to increase levels of competition in the wholesale energy market.

Edward Davey: There are two main initiatives to increase competition in the wholesale energy market led by Ofgem, which we have underpinned with new powers in the Energy Act 2013. First, Ofgem has worked with the industry to increase the amount of electricity traded in the “day ahead” market, with very encouraging progress. Over the past 12 months, over 50% of electricity has been sold on the day exchanges, compared with just 6% in 2010. Secondly, Ofgem’s new reforms—most notably, the market maker obligation—should be rolled out from 1 April 2014, which will force the big six to publish prices and require them to buy and sell electricity at those prices in the forward markets. That will increase liquidity, transparency and competition.

John Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but even he will agree that the biggest problem, particularly for the poorest in society, is cost. The energy companies that generate the power are getting 20% profit on generation, selling the electricity to themselves and then selling it on to customers in retail and getting anything between 4% and 6% profit. Surely that cannot be right. Is it not time we broke up the generation and retail sides of the business and stopped those companies dealing with themselves and undercutting the poorest members of society?

Edward Davey: I can agree with the hon. Gentleman on the cost issue and that we need reform in the wholesale market because of the vertically integrated model, but I have to remind him and Opposition Members that that model for the big six was created under the previous Government, and we are tackling the issue—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think that we have got the point.

Tom Greatrex: I remind the Secretary of State that it was the Conservative Government who privatised the electricity industry and, crucially, John Major who lifted the restriction and allowed that vertical integration. In an article in The Guardian on Monday, the Secretary of State wrote that the big six
	“either supplied themselves or opted for over-the-counter deals, with no transparency”
	and that vertical integration
	“raised concerns about the wholesale market.”
	Will he therefore answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) asked: does he agree with the policy of separating the generation and supply arms of those big businesses?

Edward Davey: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman was not listening. Ofgem’s proposals for the market maker obligation will have a big impact on the wholesale market. It will force the vertically integrated big six to tell competitors what they are prepared to charge and what they are prepared to pay for electricity in the forward markets. That will improve entrance, competition and transparency. The proposal of splitting the vertically integrated companies has real problems. It might work, but it could end up pushing up prices, which we do not want.

Topical Questions

Steve Reed: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Edward Davey: The Energy Bill received Royal Assent on 18 December and is now the Energy Act 2013. I have published the electricity market reform delivery plan, which sets out updated contract terms and strike prices alongside wider reforms to the electricity market that could unlock additional investments of about £40 billion in renewable electricity generation projects up to 2010. Renewables investment is increasing fast, with renewable electricity generation more than doubling since the coalition came to power. This is a clean, green record that we are proud of.

Steve Reed: Nearly 6,000 households are living in fuel poverty in Croydon North and, according to the Government’s own figures, the gap between their bills and what they can afford has grown to almost £500. Given that their energy bills will go up by another £60 this winter, does not this show why nothing less than a price freeze and action to stop these companies overcharging again afterwards will do?

Edward Davey: First, fuel poverty got worse under the previous Government and has been coming down under this Government; secondly, we are changing the way in which we measure fuel poverty so that we can better target the people in deepest fuel poverty; thirdly, the energy price freeze would be worse for consumers because prices would end up going up; and fourthly, later this year we will publish the first fuel poverty strategy for over a decade, and it will really address the problems that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mel Stride: The potential value of shale gas to our economy and to communities up and down our country is immense. Will my right hon. Friend therefore join me in congratulating the Government on having headed off the attempts by the European Union to regulate this sector? Does he agree that our success in heading off that attempt is very much due to the fact that we have among the safest regulation in this sector of any country in the world?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, because I was very much involved in those discussions with the European Commission and European colleagues. The House needs to be clear that the European Commission
	is talking about something that we proposed—namely, publishing guidance about how existing European directives on things such as emissions, water and mining should apply to the new shale oil and gas industry. It is also worth noting that our regulations, which we have updated and ensured are fit for purpose, are the strongest in the world.

Ian Lucas: When I met three businesses in Wrexham last Friday, they told me that the green deal was not working for them or for consumers. Will the Minister confirm that 99% of applications for the green deal do not proceed to completion?

Gregory Barker: Certainly not; I do not recognise that figure at all. In fact, new research published today says that over 80% of people who have a green deal assessment are extremely satisfied with it, and only 5% of those who have an assessment—over 117,000 have been undertaken so far—do not go on to install some of the measures that it recommends. We are not only assessing but implementing, and Labour Members need to get over it.

Lindsay Hoyle: We need a little brevity to get through topical questions.

Andrew George: I was interested to see that the Prime Minister confirmed this week that people living near shale gas sites would enjoy an additional financial benefit. Ministers have confirmed the principle that that should be available to those who live near large-scale onshore wind and large-scale onshore solar array projects. Can the Minister confirm that people who live near such projects will definitely, and on every occasion, enjoy that benefit?

Michael Fallon: Yes. What has been proposed for shale gas is exactly the same as what will apply for large-scale wind farms and large-scale solar farms. Local authorities will be able to enjoy the benefits of 100% business rate retention, and it is only right that local people should therefore get some of the benefit.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Last year, the number of additional winter deaths in the north-east hit a 10-year high. Many vulnerable people living in my constituency would have benefited from having better insulated homes, but since the introduction of the Government’s energy company obligation the number of households having insulation installed has fallen by 90%. How does the Minister explain this shocking step backwards?

Edward Davey: We take the issue of winter deaths very seriously. If the hon. Lady looks at the numbers, she will see that, over a decade and a half or more, they have fluctuated. In fact, the largest amount of winter deaths we have known in the past decade and a half was under the previous Government. We need to have a sober, mature debate on how we tackle winter death, which is a very serious problem that needs to be dealt
	with through the health service, housing, and so on. The changes we made to ECO before Christmas are very good news for people in fuel poverty, because we have not only kept the amount of ECO that goes towards dealing with fuel poverty but extended it for two more years.

Douglas Carswell: A number of homes in Clacton and Jaywick have been insulated under the “Insulating Jaywick” scheme using ECO funding, but I am told that the funding is no longer available, work has stopped and many local people who thought they had signed up to the scheme have been left rather disappointed. Will the Minister please meet me to discuss whether any funding may be available and from what source?

Gregory Barker: I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. The message we have tried to give this morning is that the ECO scheme has actually been extended, rather than shortened, and the number of people who will be helped by ECO has grown as a result of the package that has been announced. I would be very happy to discuss specifics with my hon. Friend.

Michael Connarty: May I say, as a humanist and on behalf of the humanist society in this place, that we respect the work that Paul Goggins did and the way in which he was inspired by his faith? His passing is greatly mourned by all his humanist colleagues. Has the Minister visited Sellafield recently to see the wonderful work going on to get rid of the legacy waste from the Windscale nuclear weapons programme? Is he aware that the 10,000 highly skilled workers there are going to lose their jobs as a result of the plan to shut down the reprocessing plant? Will he meet the workers when they come to this place to address the all-party group on nuclear energy?

Michael Fallon: I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, a delegation from that group when they come down to this place. He will know about the significant investment that has gone into Sellafield through the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Obviously, we want to see what prospects there are for continuing that work.

David Nuttall: In order to reassure constituents of mine who are concerned about fracking for shale gas, will my right hon. Friend please set out the range of licences and regulatory approvals any company will have to have in place before it can extract shale gas?

Michael Fallon: The regulatory road map we published in December makes it clear that any developer must have a licence from the Department; planning permission from the local minerals authority; the necessary permits from the Environment Agency; authorisation from the Health and Safety Executive that its method of fracturing is safe and poses no threat to the environment; and, finally, consent from my Department to proceed.

Jessica Morden: In the light of the Government’s announcements this week on shale gas, will the Minister give an update on his Department’s current plans for harnessing energy from the Severn estuary?

Michael Fallon: As I said earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), we published the final strike prices for both tidal and wave in December. We continue to take an interest in that particular project, which, of course, has to be commercially sustainable. I am sure that those behind the project are aware of what they have to do to bring it to the market.

Tim Loughton: Last week a constituent came to my surgery complaining of being bombarded with Government literature urging him to apply for the warm home discount and quoting the Secretary of State assuring the Select Committee that it was available to all pensioners, but, because my constituent is in sheltered accommodation and pays his energy bills via his housing association, he has been told that he does not qualify. Is the Secretary of State aware of this anomaly and is anything being done about it?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. There are one or two anomalies with the way in which the warm home discount works. We are looking at how we can tackle that, not least in our approach to the fuel poverty strategy, which will be published later this spring.

Paul Flynn: As Électricité de France has just agreed a strike price for nuclear-generated electricity in France of £38 per MWh, why have the Government agreed to pay nearly three times that price—£92 per MWh—to Électricité de France and guaranteed to index link that price for the next 35 years?

Edward Davey: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the statement by the chairman of INEOS, who claims he has made this particular arrangement. Clearly, we do not know the details of the contract, but I would be very interested to know them. I challenge INEOS: if it wants to sell cheap electricity to the UK, we would be very happy for it to come on to our markets. However, I do not think that this is a case of comparing apples with apples, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well aware.

Nick Harvey: The offshore wind industry has seen some significant setbacks of late. What is the Government’s strategy now—are they effectively writing it off and looking to other renewable technologies to meet targets, or do they still want to exploit it, and if so, will they conduct a lessons-learned exercise?

Edward Davey: I can tell my hon. Friend that there is no need for a lessons-learned exercise, because the offshore wind industry is in very healthy form. Of course, one or two projects will not go ahead—that may be for geological reasons, such as the one off the north Devon coast—but that is nothing to do with our regime. Some offshore wind projects will not get contracts for difference, but that is because we are going for the best value-for-money projects.
	The good news is that we have more installed offshore wind capacity in this country than in any other country. According to independent analysis, we are the best place to come and invest in offshore wind. When we announce those who have won the go-early CfDs in March, I am very confident that more offshore wind will come forward.

Ian Lavery: The emission level of coal is roughly 820g of CO2 per kWh, and the emission level of natural gas is roughly 430g of CO2 per kWh. Will the Minister say what he expects the emission level of shale gas to be?

Michael Fallon: We have published a study by the chief scientist at the Department on the likely emission level of shale gas. Let me take this opportunity to tell the House that we have of course now signed on the first carbon capture and storage project at Drax, which I hope that he will welcome. We hope to follow that with the second CCS project in Scotland very shortly.

Charles Hendry: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the decision of Chevron this week to allocate at least 75% of the work for the Alder field development in the North sea to companies in the UK supply chain? Will he congratulate his officials in DECC’s office in Aberdeen on how they have worked tirelessly to achieve that outcome, which is a huge boost of confidence in the UK supply chain and will be worth many tens of millions of pounds?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. I will certainly congratulate my officials in the Aberdeen office, who do tremendous work both for the oil and gas industry directly and in helping the supply chain. The industrial strategy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and I published last year has made a big difference in saying to those in the oil and gas supply chain that we want them to contract with British fabricators and other British companies.
	Finally, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for leading the all-party group set up under the industrial strategy to create better communications with the supply chain and to make it clear to international companies that they should consider using British companies as part of their projects.

Kerry McCarthy: As a Bristol MP, I have had many e-mails over the past few weeks about the use of Government subsidies to support building power stations to burn trees, such as the Helius Energy power station in Avonmouth. Will the Minister give me his assessment of the environmental impact of burning trees for power?

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady raises the issue of biomass. We are, indeed, trying to promote biomass in this country, but we have made sure that there is a cap on new dedicated biomass. We want to focus on coal stations that are converting to biomass, because that will mean a much better carbon gain. We have also published the strictest sustainability criteria for biomass in the world. We believe that biomass has a role to play
	in the transition to a green economy, but we realise that we need to take account of sustainability concerns as well.

Roger Williams: This morning, a report was launched by the foundation industries, which are the core of our economy. Some of them, such as the steel, cement and glass industries, use enormous amounts of energy. They have made it clear
	that if they are to remain competitive, energy prices should not be out of kilter with those of their competitors. Will the Secretary of State work with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that these industries are attended to?

Edward Davey: I assure my hon. Friend that I am working with my colleagues in BIS. After this Question Time, I am meeting our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to discuss this very matter.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 20 January—Second Reading of the Intellectual Property Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve a carry-over extension to the Children and Families Bill, followed by general debate on payday loan companies. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Tuesday 21 January—Opposition Day [18th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, including on the subject of pub companies.
	Wednesday 22 January—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, followed by motion to approve a European document relating to the Commission work programme 2014.
	Thursday 23 January—Debate on a motion relating to the Shrewsbury 24 and release of papers, followed by general debate on holocaust memorial day. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 24 January—Private Members’ Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 27 January will include:
	Monday 27 January—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 28 January—Second Reading of a Bill.
	Wednesday 29 January—Opposition Day [19th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 30 January—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 31 January—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 13 February will be:
	Thursday 13 February—A debate on the third report of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee report on supporting the creative economy.

Angela Eagle: I am sure that I am not alone in being disappointed not to be able to be at the funeral of our friend and colleague Paul Goggins today at Salford cathedral. We are all thinking of him and his family.
	I had wanted to thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s jam-packed and exciting programme of Government business, but it is becoming increasingly hard to find any. Last week, he refused to reveal what has happened to the elusive centrepiece of the Queen’s Speech, the Immigration Bill, so I will ask him again. When will that Bill return to the House and what on earth is the hold-up? It certainly is not a lack of Government time, as he tried to claim last week.
	Last Thursday, the Leader of the House also refused to tell us whether the Government are considering scheduling the Queen’s Speech during the pre-election
	purdah. I see that we still have no date. Will he now give us the date of the Queen’s Speech, or at least rule out staging the state opening during the election period, which would be a clear breach of the rules?
	The lobbying Bill—one piece of legislation that we will debate next week—is in a complete mess. We have had a panicked pause and a flurry of amendments designed to silence the huge chorus of critical voices, but the Government still managed to lose two crucial votes in the Lords. Even in its current form, the Bill is an unworkable disgrace that threatens legitimate democratic debate, while letting commercial lobbyists off the hook. Last night, the other place defeated the Government by more than 40 votes to exclude some staff costs from the slashed spending limits. Will the Leader of the House accept that amendment when the Bill returns to this House next week?
	The publication of papers from the National Archives under the 30-year rule has suggested that Mrs Thatcher’s Government may have played a role in the devastating attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s investigation, but I would like the Leader of the House to give an assurance to the House that no documents will be withheld from the inquiry and that the Foreign Secretary will give a prompt and full statement to the House and make the conclusions of the report public.
	On Tuesday, during Health questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), appeared to rule out any statutory regulation to prevent psychotherapists from providing gay-to-straight conversion therapy, arguing that a ban could have “unintended consequences”. Being gay is not an illness and should never be treated as something that can be cured. Aversion therapy is an abhorrent practice and the Government should be taking action to stop it. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health to clarify the Government’s position on those issues? Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Government will support the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), which would ban such so-called therapies?
	It is now nearly a year since the Prime Minister gave the speech that was supposed to end all Tory divisions on Europe, and it is fair to say that it has not been a roaring success. Within weeks, Tory Back Benchers had amended his own Queen’s Speech motion, and they have not stopped banging on about Europe ever since. This week, there has been a letter from 95 Tory MPs demanding a veto on all EU legislation. Does the Leader of the House agree with his Cabinet colleague, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who has described that latest Tory Eurosceptic initiative as “right-wing national escapism”? Or does he agree with me that we should build bridges with Europe to deliver real reform, in Britain’s national interest, rather than petulantly threaten to leave?
	The Government are so out of ideas that they have run out of legislation 16 months early; so determined to stand up for the wrong people that they defend massive bankers’ bonuses; and so out of touch that they would rather squabble about Europe than govern in the national interest. I understand from press reports this week that Ministers have spent thousands of pounds on acting
	lessons from the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. I think the whole country will agree that whatever their method, it is time the Government exited stage right.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the statement of business. In particular, I join her and our colleagues, including Mr Speaker, who will be representing the House in Salford cathedral today, in expressing our continuing condolence to Paul Goggins’s family and friends.
	The hon. Lady asked about the timing of the Immigration Bill. The remaining stages will be announced in due course. I love to leave the House wanting more, and I think I have done that today, not least for the week after next.
	The hon. Lady asked about the timing of the Queen’s Speech. I am sorry, but I think she is trying to engender a certain indignation about that. I have made no announcement, and she will recall that last year, I announced the date of the Queen’s Speech on 7 March, so it would be premature to make an announcement at this point.
	The hon. Lady is still living in a fantasy world on the impact of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. It will not stop charities and other campaigning organisations campaigning on policies or issues. It will do what it says on the tin—introduce additional transparency and a requirement that those who wish directly to influence the outcome of elections must register to do so. In response to extensive consultation with many dozens of stakeholders, we have brought forward a number of amendments in the other place. If she had cared to read the debates from Monday and Wednesday in the House of Lords, she would have discerned that there is now a lot of compromise and reconciliation on the Bill. Yes, there was a defeat on Monday and a defeat on Wednesday, but we explained carefully why we did not agree with the amendments in question that were tabled in the Lords. The Lords have still to consider the issues further on Third Reading, but I look forward to the debate next Wednesday when I hope we will see a useful Bill passed through both Houses.
	The hon. Lady asked about the inquiries into matters back in 1984 relating to the Golden Temple at Amritsar. I do not think I can add anything to what the Prime Minister said yesterday. He has asked the Cabinet Secretary to undertake an immediate review, which will look at all the documents. The Prime Minister was clear yesterday that he would consider whether it was appropriate to make a statement, or for somebody to make a statement, but one cannot really determine what one should say to the House until one has understood the review’s findings.
	The hon. Lady asked about what is referred to as conversion therapy. We do not believe that being lesbian, gay or bisexual is an illness to be treated or cured, so as my colleagues have made clear, we are concerned about so-called gay-to-straight conversion therapy. To be clear, the Department of Health does not recommend the use of such therapy, and it is not a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended treatment. Indeed, clinical commissioning groups must, in the exercise of their functions, have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited under the Equality Act 2010.
	The hon. Lady is right that the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) has a private Member’s Bill on the list for Second Reading on 24 January, but I cannot say whether we will have the opportunity to debate it on that day.
	The hon. Lady asks about Europe. I listened to my noble Friend Lord Dobbs in the House of Lords when he promoted the European Union (Referendum) Bill. The unity in the House of Commons was reflected in a substantial and impressive degree of unity among colleagues in the House of Lords. Lord Dobbs said that anybody under the age of 60 did not get to vote in the 1975 referendum, but I am under 60 and I voted. I voted then for a Common Market and I still want to be in one. Many Conservative Members, and hon. Members on both sides of the House, want a European Union that delivers an effective single market that boosts the competitiveness and wealth of the people of Europe. That is what we are looking for.
	I should mention one other thing that we are keen to do in the House—I hope those on both Front Benches share this view. We want the role of national Parliaments to be strengthened in relation to decision making in the EU. We want the yellow card procedure to be used. It has been used once and it should be used whenever subsidiarity or proportionality do not justify measures brought forward by the European Commission. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to promote—he is finding friends and allies across Europe in this—a red card procedure for national Parliaments in relation to European decision making.
	The House may not have heard, but it was announced this morning that Andrew McDonald, the chief executive of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, will retire at the end of March because of ill health. There will be future opportunities for hon. Members to give our thanks to Andrew before he retires, but in establishing IPSA in 2009, he delivered what at the time seemed to be nigh impossible. Despite his ill health from time to time, he has shown great leadership and professionalism in his role at IPSA. I have found him a great pleasure to work with since I became Leader of the House. His skill will be much missed at IPSA and by the House.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am sure it has come to the notice of the Leader of the House that, in the past few weeks, we have had disastrous flooding in Somerset—my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) is in his place. We are desperately in need of a formal debate on flooding. I have a Backbench Business Committee debate on flooding next week, but it is not good enough. We must have time for a debate. Year after year, flooding is a problem in the UK. We must discuss what we are going to do about the Environment Agency, funding and capital to ensure that we stop having to come to the House every year to beg for money from the Government of the day.

Andrew Lansley: The Government and hon. Members on both sides of the House have the greatest possible sympathy for those affected by the dramatic flooding events, and particularly for the constituents of hon. Members in Somerset. We offer our support and sympathy.
	I understand my hon. Friend’s point on debates. I hope that, in addition to the support he has already received from the Backbench Business Committee, there is time available from the Committee in the weeks ahead. I hope that he and other colleagues whose constituencies are affected look to the Committee for such debates. They would be much supported on both sides of the House.
	From the Government’s point of view, my hon. Friend will recall not least the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the recent debates on the flood insurance measures in the Water Bill, which reflected how flood management is a priority for the Government. We are investing a record amount and reducing the risk of flooding to 165,000 households during the current spending round. Investment will reduce the risk of flooding for a further 300,000 households in the spending round beyond.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yesterday, tucked away in the routine publication of statistics from the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, we learned that statistics for bovine TB have been suspended because of what the Government agency reported could be a significant over-reporting of the incidence of bovine TB since September 2011. This means that the House has been inadvertently misled on a prime justification for badger culls. Will the Leader of the House demand that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs make an oral statement to the House early next week?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman correctly notes that a system error in the GB bovine TB statistics has been discovered by the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, which affected some of the monthly statistics published. That has affected the reporting of TB statistics; TB surveillance and disease control regimes have continued to operate normally. No livestock businesses should have been directly impacted. The scheduled publication happened, but some of the figures that would normally have been included have been excluded for now. Urgent work to put right the error is ongoing, and a full set of statistics will be published as soon as possible.

David Heath: May we have a debate on transparency and the use of public funds in local government? In Somerset, a previous leader of the county council fell out with the chief executive and summarily sacked him in 2009. That cost Somerset council taxpayers more than a third of a million pounds. It now appears that exactly the same thing is happening again. The present chief executive is “out of the office” and has been for seven weeks. No statement has been made by the council, and members of the council have been gagged by a confidentiality clause. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government—who I gather is in my constituency this week, although he has not had the courtesy to tell me—to investigate?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will understand if I do not comment on the specific case in Somerset to which he refers, but I hope he knows that we are taking steps
	to simplify the process used for resolving disputes with senior council staff. Indeed, the Secretary of State announced that the designated independent person process is to be abolished and steps will be taken to enhance the transparency of local decisions taken by the full council to provide the necessary protection for senior officers. Soundings were taken on the current proposals. That process closed on 14 January and the Department is currently considering the responses it has received. That is the general context. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not only inform the House in due course on how he is proceeding on those matters, but respond specifically to my hon. Friend.

Diana Johnson: Between June 2011 and September 2013, only 5.4% of the 3,670 disabled people put on the coalition’s Work programme have found jobs. May we please have a debate on the lamentable failure of the Government’s flagship policy for getting disabled people into work?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady will be aware of the welfare reforms and poverty debate that took place earlier this week. I hope there will be continuing opportunities to consider the Work programme, because overall one can see how it is making an enormous difference to those who have previously been out of work. On disabled people specifically, I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the written ministerial statement today from my hon. Friends at the Department for Work and Pensions on the publication of “Better Working with Disabled People”. I hope that that shows how the partnership with disabled people and their representatives is improving under this Government.

Rehman Chishti: I have been approached by a constituent who has seen her arrears increase since Law of Property Act 1925 receivers were appointed to manage her property. May we have an urgent debate on the role and regulation of LPA receivers?

Andrew Lansley: I will not dilate on the issue of LPA receivers at present, but I will ask my hon. Friends to reply directly to my hon. Friend. I cannot promise a debate at the moment, but by raising the issue he has enabled us to focus additional attention on it.

Gavin Shuker: A series of UN Security Council resolutions dating back to 1948 have sought to bring resolution in the disputed area of Kashmir. Will time be made available by the Government for a debate to allow the voices of the people of Kashmir to be heard?

Andrew Lansley: Like many hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the continuing concern among many of our constituents about Kashmir. I cannot promise a debate at the moment, but I have heard the Foreign Secretary respond sympathetically on these issues, so the hon. Gentleman might consider raising them at Foreign Office questions next Tuesday.

Pauline Latham: I was going to ask for a debate on the mice infestation in my office, but I suspect there would be so many Members scampering into the Chamber to take part that there would not be time, so I shall not do so.
	I am pleased that the Government will be spending £18 billion during this Parliament on new school buildings and developments to existing ones, but may we have a debate on the time scales for these improvements to ensure that there are shorter periods between the agreement of funding, an agreement on the design of the schools and the start of the building projects?

Hon. Members: Answer the one about the mice.

Andrew Lansley: I am scurrying to answer. I was just wondering whether there were any traps in my hon. Friend’s question.
	My hon. Friend will recall that when we came into office, under the previous Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme no school construction had started. It is the experience of many Members that considerable reductions in costs and an acceleration in process have been achieved under this Government through the new Priority School Building programme. The Secretary of State recently announced that 260,000 schools places had already been created under this Government, and additional substantial funding has been announced that I think takes the funding over this four-year period to about two and a half to three times what it was under the previous Government. All that is positive news. We want to ensure that plans put in place are cost-effective and achieved in as timely a fashion as possible, and I know that that is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Pat Glass: Members on both sides of the House have long had concerns about the badger cull, the Government’s case for its efficiency and effectiveness, and its very morality. We now find out that their case is based on largely dodgy statistics. May we have a debate in Government time on this issue, which is so important to our constituents?

Andrew Lansley: I do not think that the hon. Lady should get too carried away until the statisticians have quantified the error. One should not characterise the situation as she did and certainly should not exaggerate. The Government have been assiduous in bringing this issue back for the House to consider, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will continue to do so.

Glyn Davies: One of the potential benefits of devolution is that different Administrations can follow different policies, giving us the opportunity to learn from each other. There is particular concern about the performance of education in Wales. May we have a debate about how devolution operates, and about possible mechanisms for making direct comparisons so that we can learn from each other about how different Administrations work?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend rightly points to concerns, not least those captured in the OECD’s statistics on educational attainment. Those statistics, which make comparisons between countries, including England and Wales, show a worrying lack of attainment in reading and mathematics in Wales, and it is important to deal with that. In my view, this is not an intrinsic criticism of devolution, but much more a criticism of the policies pursued by the devolved Administration in Wales. We
	do not need a change in the devolution settlement to tackle these issues; we need a change of Government in Wales—away from a Labour Government.

Jonathan Ashworth: I listened to the Leader of the House’s answer on the revelations about the Golden Temple in Amritsar. This issue has caused much shock and upset for many of my constituents of all faiths. The Prime Minister indicated yesterday that he thought that a statement might be in order. I hope that we get that statement; many of my constituents will be disappointed if we do not. I also impress on the Leader of the House the need for the inquiry to report quickly, rather than being kicked into the long grass, as some of my constituents fear.

Andrew Lansley: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman what I said to the shadow Leader of the House. As soon as the Prime Minister was aware of the issue, he took action and asked for a review, which is fair enough, but it is not our practice to say that we are going to make a statement until we are in possession of all the facts. It is reasonable for us to operate on that basis. Rather than the hon. Gentleman and others trying to decide what happened, it would be better to wait and find out what happened.

Anne McIntosh: May we have an early debate on the procedures to be followed for fracking? A number of fracking licences are being applied for in my area, and I honestly do not know what procedure applies. We heard in Energy and Climate Change questions that there will be a strategic environmental assessment through which we might be able to find out what the licences cover. There is an important difference between the shallow fracking that currently takes place and deep fracking, which will send shock waves through the countryside and is a matter of much greater concern.

Andrew Lansley: I know that my hon. Friend was in the Chamber for Energy and Climate Change questions, so she will have heard about some of the essentials of what a regulatory road map for fracking licences would look like. I know that Members are seeking opportunities for debates through the Backbench Business Committee, and I am sure that the House will continue to consider this issue.

Chris Bryant: I was a bit surprised by the Leader of the House’s answer to the question about the Queen’s Speech. There is a major innovation here because, for the first time ever, the Government have delayed the local elections until 22 May—the date to which the European elections have been brought forward—and the right hon. Gentleman has already announced the date on which we go into recess as 22 May, meaning that the only way of having the Queen’s Speech in May would be to hold it during purdah. Surely he can just rule out bringing Her Majesty here and tying her into party politics by having the Queen’s Speech during an election period.

Andrew Lansley: Given that I have not made any announcement about the date of the Queen’s Speech, everything that the hon. Gentleman has said is pure speculation.

Jake Berry: In what can be described only as a slam-dunk start to 2014, Rossendale and Darwen has heard the announcement that it is the biggest climber in the UK competitiveness index, we have been awarded £2 million to restore our town centre in Bacup and two new major employers are opening up in Darwen. May we have a debate in Government time about how the Government’s long-term economic plan is working and on how Rossendale and Darwen, east Lancashire and your constituency of Chorley, Mr Deputy Speaker, are the best places in Britain in which to start and grow a business?

Andrew Lansley: I wish I had time available for such a debate, which would provide an excellent opportunity for my hon. Friend to showcase and pay tribute to what Rossendale and Darwen is doing. It would provide a fantastic opportunity for us to debate the clear success of the Government’s long-term economic plan. We are reducing the deficit, cutting income tax and fuel duty, creating more jobs, capping welfare, reducing immigration and, of course, delivering on better schools and skills, all of which is exemplified in Rossendale.

Barry Sheerman: May I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you would never need acting lessons from RADA?
	The Leader of the House knows of my continuing obsession with the accountancy profession and particular auditing processes—or a lack of them—regarding the banking scandal. May I point him to a particular worry about a company called Grant Thornton, which is involved in a relationship with Kaupthing bank in the context of the Icelandic banking collapse? The relationship between that bank and the Serious Fraud Office is a matter of much speculation, and it is believed that £400 million of taxpayers’ money is being held back by Grant Thornton, meaning that the public cannot get it. May we have a debate on the accountancy profession and Grant Thornton’s practices?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not in a position to comment on any of the specifics in that question. He will have noted that there was an Opposition debate on banking yesterday. In our previous exchanges at business questions, the passage of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 afforded him the opportunity to raise such issues.

Peter Lilley: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend and hon. Members to the House of Commons Members’ Fund Bill, which I introduced and which is scheduled for Second Reading tomorrow? The Bill will reform the archaic and costly legislation that governs the benevolent fund that exists to help former Members of Parliament and their dependants who fall on hard times. It will reduce costs and reflect changing circumstances, thereby enabling us to forgo a Treasury grant, to suspend the £2 monthly payment that each Member makes to the fund and to return £1 million to the Treasury, while also ensuring that the fund remains capable of meeting ongoing needs given that, sadly, hardship continues to occur among former Members. If the Bill receives its Second Reading, will my right hon. Friend expedite—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think that the Leader of the House has got the gist of the right hon. Gentleman’s question.

Peter Lilley: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sorry, but I am sure that the Leader of the House will manage to construct an answer from what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who chairs the Members’ fund and whose stewardship of it, along with that of his colleagues, has been very effective. I think that anyone who cares to read the explanatory notes accompanying his Bill will appreciate what a sensible and welcome reform he proposes. He might have been wondering whether, if the Bill receives its Second Reading tomorrow, the Government will table a money motion in support of it, and I can tell him that that would be our intention.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Business Sprinkle Alliance organises fire sprinkler week, which this year will begin on 3 February. The Building Research Establishment and the Centre for Economics and Business Research have published data showing that fire causes £1 billion of losses to the United Kingdom economy every five years. Can we expect a statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in support of fire sprinkler week?

Andrew Lansley: I will of course draw what the hon. Gentleman rightly says to the attention of my colleagues in BIS. They may well be aware of the facts that he has given, and supportive of what he has said. I think he will agree that, overall, this country’s fire prevention measures have been remarkably successful, but it is nevertheless important for us to maintain them, because there are still occasional tragic instances in which fires result in injuries or fatalities that could have been avoided if the right sprinklers and other preventive measures had been in place.

Peter Bone: Business questions probably constitutes one of the most important sessions in the week. We have two star performers who do not need any acting lessons, but the real advantage of being here for business questions is that we learn the truth, as well as new things. Today we have learned from the shadow Leader of the House that the Labour party is in favour of continuing our present relationship with the European Union and opposed to an EU referendum, and we have learned from the Leader of the House—I do not think that even the Prime Minister has said this—that the Conservative party now wants to return to a common market and nothing else. That is really good news, so will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on whether the EU should become just a common market, and give our Liberal Democrat colleagues the right to vote against that proposal along with Labour Members?

Andrew Lansley: As I said when I announced the future business, we expect the remaining stages of the European Union (Approvals) Bill to be debated on Monday week. I think that that will give Members an opportunity to
	continue to debate specific issues relating to the Europe for Citizens programme which, in my view, illustrates the capacity for positive co-operation across Europe that extends beyond the achievement of a common market.
	I fear that I must inform my hon. Friend that while I said that I had voted for a common market and that I wanted one, I did not say that I had voted for a common market and nothing else. However, I think that there is as yet unfinished work to be done in the establishment of a single market, and that one of the best things that we can achieve in Europe is to become the strongest and most influential advocates of a competitive single market. I thought that the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor earlier this week amply illustrated the benefits of that competitiveness to Europe, the necessity of achieving it, and the dangers of not doing so.

Tom Blenkinsop: Tomorrow marks the 50th anniversary of the closure of North Skelton ironstone mine, which was the last ironstone mine in East Cleveland to close. East Cleveland ironstone fed Teesside’s iron and steel industry from the days of Bolckow and Pease, with great structures such as the Sydney harbour bridge being smelted from East Cleveland iron on the banks of the Tees. More than 30 men and boys were recorded as dying in North Skelton pits, so may we have a debate on making Skinningrove’s East Cleveland ironstone mining museum the nation’s ironstone mining museum?

Andrew Lansley: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says and think that he makes an important point about the history and circumstances of his constituency. I cannot promise a debate, but he has put his important points on record and there may be further opportunities for him to raise them.

Mark Field: May I associate myself with the words of the Front Benchers about Paul Goggins? Paul was a lovely man, and we worked together over the past three or so years as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Leader of the House will be aware that that Committee has got some new and inflated powers, following the passage of the Justice and Security Act 2013. Will he therefore reinstitute the annual debate in Government time on matters of security and intelligence?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right that that Committee has important new responsibilities and powers under that Act. It was not an invariable practice that the Government would hold an annual debate, but it is also the case that, when the Backbench Business Committee was established, it was clear that a number of general debates that had taken place in Government time previously should properly be considered by the Backbench Business Committee as debates in its time. I have had a continuing conversation about that with the Chairs of the ISC and the BBC.

Valerie Vaz: Any attack on a place of worship must be condemned so, on behalf of my constituents and those of other Members, may I ask that all the documents in respect of what happened at
	Amritsar in 1984 that are in the custody and control of the Government are released so that we have full transparency?

Andrew Lansley: Without wishing to repeat myself, let me say that I completely understand and share the concern the hon. Lady raises, but I urge Members not to prejudge the circumstances then until we know more.

Lee Scott: With the rise and re-emergence of anti-Semitism across mainland Europe and its links to organisations in the United Kingdom, may we have a debate about how we can stamp out that vile practice?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question and I think that the whole House will be grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for a debate to commemorate Holocaust memorial day next Thursday. Recently, of course, we received the findings of a survey by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights showing that, regrettably, two thirds of respondents considered anti-Semitism to be a problem, while three quarters said that the situation had got worse over the past five years. While that survey found that the UK Jewish community had more confidence in the authorities here and were less nervous about anti-Semitism than communities elsewhere in Europe, there are too many anti-Semitic incidents, so we need to work actively with civil society to challenge anti-Semitism through education and better reporting, and by tackling hate crime.

Kevin Brennan: As we have heard about Ministers’ acting lessons, may we have a written statement from the Prime Minister about the cast of characters—the 96—who wrote to him about the European Union, because do not the public and this House have a right to know who are the principal players in the Euro soap opera that is the current Conservative party?

Andrew Lansley: As I understand it, the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question is flawed in that the reference to money being paid for drama lessons was in relation to civil servants, not Ministers.

Paul Uppal: As the only Sikh Member of the House of Commons, and as a Sikh who was 16 when the attack on the Golden Temple happened, I would like to advise hon. Members that, 30 years after that event, what Sikhs actually want is an end of rumour, suspicion and speculation. What they all want is the truth, and I ask all Members of this House to avoid politicising this because it is much more important than that.
	Turning to my substantive question to the Leader of the House, Wolverhampton council is seeking to close Wolverhampton central baths. A petition has been signed by 6,000 people including myself. May we have a debate on safeguarding valuable facilities such as Wolverhampton baths?

Andrew Lansley: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that Members throughout the House will take on board and follow his prescription in relation to the events in Amritsar. He is quite right to say that the truth needs to be established.
	I also completely agree with my hon. Friend’s point about swimming pools. Local authorities have the ability to use their public health resources to look at a wide range of issues, not least because of the reforms brought in by this Government, and I hope that they will consider access to swimming pools as a significant source of support for public health. For example, I recall a scheme—in Birmingham, I think—that provided free swimming opportunities for older people as part of the local authority’s public health measures.

Ian Murray: Shares in Royal Mail closed at 616p yesterday, which was their highest ever price and 90% more than the issue price of 330p. May we have a statement from the Business Secretary on why he sold Royal Mail at 330p, and why he finds it acceptable that the taxpayers of this country lost £750 million?

Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) gave evidence to the BIS Committee that amply illustrated how, after many years of failure to secure the necessary private sector investment in Royal Mail, this was a very positive step forward. Securing a successful sale was an achievement. The Secretary of State and the Minister responded to the points put to them, and the Select Committee will report in due course.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Does not Monday’s welcome news that the Government are going to offer more to communities that might be affected by fracking add to the need for a full debate on the Floor of the House about the community compensation scheme for fracking so that we can determine whether enough is being offered, whether the scheme needs statutory underpinning and how we can protect future funds as an addition to other local government funding?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will recall what the Prime Minister said yesterday in response to a question from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) about this subject—he was very supportive of continuing to discuss it with the Local Government Association. My ministerial colleagues and I will ensure that the House is updated in response to the points that my hon. Friend has rightly raised.

Jim Shannon: Headlines in the past few days’ papers have stated that sugar is the tobacco of today’s age and warned of the dangerous levels of obesity and diabetes resulting from the addition of sugar, salt and carbohydrates to the foods that we eat. This is not just a health issue. Will the Leader of the House arrange that we have a statement—or, better still, a debate—on this important subject?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will recall the responses from the Prime Minister yesterday and from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health last week on this issue. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman; one of the objectives that we are achieving through the responsibility deal is the reduction of sugar in foods in a
	manner that reflects the successful approach that we have taken to the reduction of salt. This is not something we can unilaterally impose, not least because of the structure of the single market. Making misleading comparisons with tobacco is unhelpful in this context; any consumption of tobacco is harmful, whereas it is the excessive consumption of sugar that is harmful. We want to tackle the inclusion of excessive amounts of sugar in food, and we can do so.

David Burrowes: May we have a statement following the visit of the President of Cyprus, Nicos Anastasiades, which resulted in a significant joint communiqué yesterday that reaffirmed the active commitment of the Prime Minister and the President to a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem? Significantly, it included an agreement to allow property development within the sovereign base areas. Does not that demonstrate that the British Government are a true friend of Cyprus?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Yesterday’s meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of Cyprus was very welcome, and the statement was an important one. I hope that, as a result, there will be opportunities for my ministerial colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to set out further details relating to this matter.

Mark Lazarowicz: On Monday, the House passed a motion, with massive all-party support, calling for a commission of inquiry into the effects on poverty of the Government’s welfare reforms. I know that the Leader of the House is a great defender of Back-Bench debates and motions. Will he tell us when the Government intend to establish such a commission of inquiry?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any positive response in that regard. Backbench Business Committee debates are important, and we continually look at the conclusions that are reached and the contributions to those debates. However, I cannot give him any specifics about the date of any commission.

Andrew Bridgen: For many years, schools in my county of Leicestershire have bumped along at the very bottom of the education funding league tables, in stark contrast to schools in Leicester city. Each pupil there has £700 more funding than those in the county, while areas in my constituency have severe deprivation. Please may we have a debate on a fairer funding model for schools?

Andrew Lansley: I hope that my hon. Friend will know that the Government agree that the current funding system—the one we inherited—is unfair and irrational. We have already introduced important reforms to ensure more transparency and consistency in the way in which school budgets are set locally, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will announce shortly how we plan to continue the reforms by taking steps to address the current unfair distribution of funding between local areas.

Wayne David: As the House knows, there is an excellent rock band in the House, MP4, but if Scotland secedes from the Union, it will be MP3. Will
	the Leader of the House assure us that if that were to happen, proper auditions would be held, with him, to ensure that there is a new keyboard player for MP4?

Andrew Lansley: It is a matter of regret that I was not able to attend the concert on Tuesday, but I hope it went well and I have listened to the CD.

Angela Eagle: Gig.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, I am still in the 1970s—that is when I used to organise concerts. My approach to this matter would be to say that we are better together.

Nick de Bois: If the Leader of the House was unfortunate enough to be commuting on the Hertford loop over the past four months, he would know that First Capital Connect and Network Rail have combined to give the most sustained period of heavy delays, cancellations and limited rolling stock, resulting in passengers having to resort to bikes on some days. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has joined me in meetings with those companies, but we feel that yet more progress has to be made, particularly with negotiations for a new franchise coming up. Will the Leader of the House find time for us to have a debate on this appalling service in our constituencies?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will know that if he were able, with others, to go to the Backbench Business Committee, he might find time in an Adjournment debate or in Westminster Hall to raise these specific issues. However, in order to be as helpful as I can, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to look specifically at the issues that he and his colleague raise.

Jeremy Corbyn: May I ask the Leader of the House once again to look at the issue of housing in this country? Will he examine the terrible combination of the benefit cap, cuts in benefits altogether and the sky-high private sector rents in London, which are leading to the social cleansing of whole areas of our capital city? We need urgent action on this, including a debate on the need to bring in realistic rent controls so that housing is affordable for everyone in this country, not just the privileged minority.

Andrew Lansley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government are as focused as any Government in recent history on increasing the supply of housing, from the woefully low levels occurring in the years before the last general election. Included in that is the achievement of additional affordable housing; we have 170,000 more affordable houses, following the lamentable decline of more than 400,000 in the number of social houses available under the previous Government.

Andrew Jones: At the north of England education conference this week, Ofsted chief Sir Michael Wilshaw said that the quality of teaching was improving. He also said:
	“We have never had a more motivated, more qualified, more enthused generation of young teachers than we have now”.
	That is a very encouraging quote. Please may we have a debate on what is being done to bring the brightest and
	best into our teaching profession, and to retain them, because that is vital to ensuring that our educational standards keep improving?

Andrew Lansley: I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only Sir Michael Wilshaw, but The Times Educational Supplement has made it clear that there has probably never been a better time to be a teacher and to join the teaching profession, and the quality of teachers in our schools is at one of the highest levels it has ever been. That is partly because of the reform of initial teacher training, and 74% of graduates entering initial teacher training now have a 2:1 degree or higher—that proportion is the highest on record.

Andy Slaughter: May we have a debate on education, particularly on the refusal of Tory councils to support or invest in community schools? That would give me the opportunity to raise the case of Sulivan school in Fulham, one of the best performing primaries in the country, which on Monday Hammersmith and Fulham council will decide to close and demolish solely so that its site can be given to a free school.

Andrew Lansley: I cannot comment on the particular case, but I will of course ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to look at the matter and respond. I will discover more about the circumstances then. In my experience, there is an undoubted determination on the part of councils—I know Hammersmith and Fulham as a council pretty well—to ensure improvement in the provision of schools.

Bob Blackman: Earlier this month, we had the welcome news that £29 million is being allocated to Harrow council for the creation of new school places. As a result, 13 schools will get 2,845 new places. That is in direct contrast to two years ago when the then Labour-run council failed even to submit a bid for much-needed school places. May we have a debate, on the Floor of the House, on the issue of school places and on ensuring that there is a place for every child in this country to get a proper and decent education?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises an issue, which I, if I had time available, would welcome a chance to debate. The announcement before Christmas of additional funding for school places was important and welcome. He will know that since 2011 Harrow has been allocated a total of £36 million for new school places and has also benefited from £34 million of investment through the targeted basic need programme, which will fund the expansion of 15 schools by September 2015.

Paul Flynn: When can we have a debate to explain to former US Defence Secretary Gates that having a full spectrum of military cover has cost us grievously in the loss of more than 600 of our brave soldiers in two recent avoidable wars? Furthermore, being the fourth highest spender on defence in the world and punching above our weight means that we spend beyond our means and die beyond our responsibilities.

Andrew Lansley: If we had such an opportunity with the former Defence Secretary, he would understand that we, like many across the world, have had to take tough decisions on defence spending. However, he would
	acknowledge that, as a consequence of the decisions this Government have made and the value for money that we are achieving not least in procurement, we have closed that enormous black hole in commitments against resources that our Ministry of Defence had. That has enabled us to plan to spend £160 billion on equipment over the next decade, giving us a formidable range of cutting-edge capabilities. As for the Navy, the new aircraft carrier is almost complete, and the Type 45 destroyers, Type 26 frigates and seven new Astute class submarines are coming into base, which demonstrates that we have the best trained and equipped armed forces outside the United States.

Jeremy Lefroy: The Government’s welcome banking reforms, including the raising of capital, are one part of countering the excessive risk-taking over many years by the banks. Another part of that is for the banks to acknowledge the consequences of that risk- taking. May we have a statement on the slow rate at which banks are looking into things such as the mis-selling of interest rate swaps to so-called unsophisticated investors?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 will allow us to make important steps in ensuring that we have a banking system that is not prey to the regulatory failures of the past. None the less, he makes an important point about mis-selling in relation to interest rate swaps. I know that my hon. Friends at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are anxious to make progress in settling that. I hope that the new Financial Conduct Authority will see that as one of its priorities.

Mary Glindon: Following the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), will the Leader of the House clarify in what way the significant over-reporting of bovine TB and its associated costs and consequences will be brought before the House?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady will have heard me say that although there were statistical errors, they will not have affected the surveillance and they will not have directly affected livestock businesses through costs and impacts. When the statisticians have identified and quantified the errors, there will be an opportunity for Ministers to provide information to the House about the nature of the error.

Philip Hollobone: May we have a statement from the Home Office to highlight the success of the National Crime Agency in cracking an international paedophile internet ring responsible for the online sex abuse of children living in poverty in the Philippines? Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to congratulate Northamptonshire police, who first uncovered the ring through a routine investigation of the then registered sex offender and now convicted paedophile Timothy Ford in his home in Kettering? Does that not show that sometimes diligent routine local police work can have important international repercussions?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I was not aware of the role of Northamptonshire police but I am interested to hear about it and I entirely endorse what he has to say about the merits of such diligent police work. The case also demonstrates the importance of the NCA’s focus on some of the issues that are of greatest concern to us all, including child exploitation. The nature of the internet has made it possible for some crimes to be perpetrated across the world and some measures, including the recent ones in Canada, can, along with the international co-operation of which our NCA is a part, give us heightened effectiveness in tackling such organised crime.

Stephen McCabe: Why has the Home Secretary not made a statement to the House on the astonishing admission that police crime figures are fiddled to the point of being totally unreliable? Does the Leader of the House agree that that dreadful state of affairs needs to be addressed urgently?

Andrew Lansley: I think we all agree that it is important that recorded crime statistics are as robust as they possibly can be. One of the first things we did when we came into office was to transfer responsibility to an independent Office for National Statistics. It is doing its job, and that is a reflection of an important step that the coalition Government took. The Home Secretary asked the inspectorate to carry out an audit in June of the quality of crime recording in every police force, and only last week she wrote to chief constables emphasising that the police must ensure that crimes are recorded accurately and honestly. It is worth noting that the separate and wholly independent crime survey for England and Wales, endorsed again yesterday by the ONS, also shows a more than 10% reduction in crime over the same period from 2010. Crime now stands at its lowest level since that survey began in 1981. The evidence is clear that police reform is working and crime is falling.

David Nuttall: May we have a debate on the 2014 index of economic freedom, prepared by the Heritage Foundation, so that the House can explore why the UK is placed 14th on the list and why not a single other EU country is categorised as free, whereas countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, New Zealand and Canada are categorised as economically free?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate, but he raises an interesting point. I know the Heritage Foundation and the importance of some of the research that it undertakes. The 1.2 million additional jobs created in this country since 2010 are evidence that illustrates to Europe the positive impacts associated with greater economic freedom. That is something that can be understood and appreciated across Europe.

Tom Greatrex: Late last year, a relative of my constituents died while in prison serving a custodial sentence. He was tried and convicted in England but returned to serve part of his sentence in Scotland under what is called a restricted transfer. As I am sure the Leader of the House is aware, when relatives are unable to afford to pay for a funeral the Prison Service is obliged to make a reasonable contribution to funeral expenses, but because
	this situation involved a prisoner convicted of an English offence serving in a Scottish prison neither the Scottish Prison Service nor the English Prison Service will take responsibility for this matter. May we have a statement from the Ministry of Justice about how prisoners who are transferred—or, more accurately, their relatives—are dealt with by the Prison Service?

Andrew Lansley: I can understand why the hon. Gentleman raises that issue on behalf of his constituents. It is regrettable that they were placed in that situation. I do not know the circumstances of the case, but I will ask my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and his colleagues to look into it and respond to him as soon as possible.

Oliver Colvile: In November, on the Terrace of this place, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society launched the Now or Never campaign on shaping pharmacy for the future. On Tuesday the Secretary of State for Health met me, pharmacists from Devon and Cornwall, including some from my constituency, and a member of the English Pharmacy Board. Given the Leader of the House’s commitment to putting pharmacists at the centre of the NHS, may we have a debate on how, by sharing data with pharmacists, we can work to take the pressure off GPs and accident and emergency units?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will know, not least because the all-party group on pharmacy, of which he is a member, has followed these matters carefully, that the last contract under the previous Government promised pharmacists much but delivered very little. There is clearly tremendous potential, previously unrealised, for pharmacy to contribute to public health and prevention, taking the load off the NHS, for example by dealing with minor injuries and medicines management. There is every prospect that NHS England, through its framework pharmacy contract, and clinical commissioning groups have a tremendous incentive to use pharmacies, as do local authorities in relation to some preventive measures. I hope that they will do that. One of the blockages that he rightly refers to under the previous Government was pharmacists’ complete inability to access patients’ summary care records. We need to make it possible for patients to have their conditions monitored and treated and to be provided with medicines in pharmacies through access to that information.

Albert Owen: In the light of recent food scandals, including the horsemeat scandal, may we have a debate in Government time on the importance of food labelling, which allows consumers to know what is in the products they are eating and the country of
	origin? Will he also join me in congratulating Halen Môn Anglesey sea salt on achieving European special status? It is a unique product from a unique county of origin.

Andrew Lansley: It is indeed, and I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Halen Môn Anglesey sea salt on the designation. It is about not only food safety, but preference, because consumers attach importance to quality. Origin labelling gives them access to the sort of information they want.

Christopher Pincher: The scandal at Mid Staffordshire still casts a long shadow over the patients, families and health care professionals in my county. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—he is in his place—who has been a sterling champion of local concerns. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he favours having a debate on the matter. Will the Leader of the House find time for such a debate as soon as possible?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and join him in thanking our hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) and colleagues across Staffordshire for their assiduous work in following up on the concerns of their constituents. He is quite right that the Prime Minister has made it clear that we are looking to have a debate on the Francis report in due course. As I made clear to the House before, I did not feel that it was appropriate to have such a debate before there had been a full Government response. We had that response at the end of last year, and some of it is being reflected in measures coming forward in the Care Bill. However, I hope that it will still be possible to have a more general debate shortly on the Francis report and the Government’s response, because it raises issues much wider than those specifically covered in the Care Bill.

Simon Danczuk: When the Government reduced services at Rochdale infirmary and moved some of them to North Manchester general hospital, we were assured by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust that adequate public transport would be provided. That clearly has not happened. May we have a debate on the adequacy of public transport links to our local hospitals?

Andrew Lansley: I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about this because, as he will probably recall, as shadow Secretary of State I was very concerned about access for communities not only in Rochdale, but in Bury and in Rossendale and Darwen, to services in north Manchester. I raised those concerns, along with other Members, at the time. Transport for Greater Manchester has a responsibility in relation to this. I know that the Department for Transport is aware of these issues and is raising them with TFGM.

Backbench Business

Bangladesh

Anne Main: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the current situation in Bangladesh.
	I am pleased to see that this debate will be well attended despite the fact that it was arranged at very short notice. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), who originally tabled it, with my support, at the Backbench Business Committee, but cannot lead it because of previous commitments. I am pleased to share the debate with him, and I know how actively he takes an interest in the subject.
	We could not possibly look at the current political situation and sense of instability in Bangladesh without briefly revisiting what has happened in the past, which has helped to form the situation. I was in Dhaka in 2006 when the previous Government led by Khaleda Zia, the Bangladesh Nationalist party and various coalition parties were proceeding with an election in which the Awami League was not participating and which was deemed unfair and undemocratic. The non-participation and civil unrest that ensued led to a takeover by the army. Dhaka was under curfew and chaos ensued as a result.
	There has now been another election that both parties came back and contested having spent two years out of the country and out of political engagement while the caretaker Government led by the military were in place. The Awami League won a landslide victory. That was not disputed; the voting was considered to be perfectly within the rules of the electoral process. However, it appears that nothing was learned from those two years in the wilderness or from the grievances expressed against the previous Government. The Government led by the Awami League carried on with an election but there was not full voter participation, to put it mildly—it was about 30%—and there was non-participation by the leading opposition. There were all the similar complaints of non-engagement in Parliament because microphones were switched off, and so on.
	I am sorry to say that the democratic process improved nothing between 2006 and the latest election in 2013. That is deeply disappointing given the amount of the British aid budget that goes into supporting the strengthening of democracy in Bangladesh, such as the training of civil servants.

Mark Field: All of us who have Bangladesh close to our hearts are deeply worried by the situation, particularly, as my hon. Friend rightly says, over the past seven years. There seems to be a sense that that country is again plummeting towards the prospect of some military takeover and martial law. Does she agree that while one inevitably has to look at the history, going back as far as partition in 1971, it is also important that there is a responsibility in the hands of today’s Bangladeshi politicians to draw a line under the past and look with a firm eye to the future?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We must have shorter interventions. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to speak in the debate, but he cannot make a speech in an intervention.

Anne Main: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that others will touch on that matter. On 12 December, before the election, Baroness Warsi, the senior Minister of State in the other place, went to try to encourage the leaders—Begum Khaleda Zia and the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina—to put aside their various differences, to park the acrimony and bitter disputes that they have as a historical political narrative, and to continue the process of dialogue.
	Our Government, I am proud to say, continue to urge all parties to work together and to strengthen democratic accountability, but unfortunately it is not bearing a lot of fruit. The parliamentary model over there does not reflect ours. There are no shadow teams, so any new Government coming in will not have been actively involved in shadow responsibilities in a Parliament that is regularly empty—I have sat in there.

Rehman Chishti: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On having confidence in the caretaker system and an Opposition to shadow the Government, a key element for many years was that Bangladesh had caretaker Governments before elections—as in other countries, such as Pakistan—to ensure that the election process was fair and transparent and that all political parties could have confidence in it. It was completely and utterly wrong that that did not happen this time.

Anne Main: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point that has been raised many times with the all-party group on Bangladesh and other Members with an active interest in the issue. The reason the caretaker Government were introduced was that neither party trusted each other. During the 2006 election, the then Opposition—the Awami League—hotly disputed the fairness of the caretaker system and accused the BNP-led Government of stuffing it with their own supporters and people with influence over, or who owed their jobs to, them.
	It was not a perfect system. The Awami League Government had a right under the constitution to alter it and they did so. I completely accept that many of the public disagreed with that decision, but it was recognised internationally that, given that they were elected in an 87% landslide victory, it was within their electoral mandate to make it.
	Since the decision was made, I am sorry to say that the country has been in turmoil. Members of the all-party group—some of whom are present—visited the country in September to investigate the collapse of the Rana Plaza and other infrastructure deficits associated with the Tazreen fire and other garment factory fires and collapses. We raised the issue with both leaders and with businesses, asking them what their concerns were about the current unhappiness, debate and instability surrounding the change from the caretaker system—which, despite the fact that it was regularly disputed, was understood—to the leap into a future without such a system. People can have confidence in one system over another only if they truly believe that a caretaker is neutral. I believe that towards the end of the process, as the election loomed, Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League suggested a move towards a version of a caretaker system with Ministers from both sides, but it was not accepted
	This is always a matter of dispute. The Bangladeshi Prime Minister told the all-party group—I found this poignant but, oh, so true—that an election has never
	taken place in Bangladesh without blood and dispute. That has been the case since the birth of the country. The people who suffer are the poor and those whose livelihoods rest on whether the international garment industry, which is dragging Bangladesh—if only it could get its act together—to the fore of a tiger economy, will get fed up.

Nick de Bois: May I press my hon. Friend on the important point she is making? During our visit to investigate the collapse of the Rana Plaza, was not the clear message from those businesses that perform to ethically high standards that, unless the infrastructure, stability and future of Bangladesh was secure, they could not pledge their continuing support?

Anne Main: My hon. Friend accompanied the team and did a very able job, along with the hon. Members for Rochdale, for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). We managed to prise out of businesses—some of which did not wish to be identified—their concerns and they are reflected in our report, which we submitted to the Department for International Development. It says that we
	“were concerned about the complacent belief in Bangladesh that”
	the ready-made garment industry
	“will continue to invest in the country for the foreseeable future”,
	and that businesses were concerned about the infrastructure problems.
	Every building in Bangladesh is liable to collapse in an earthquake, apart from—I am pleased to say that at least our staff will be safe—the high commission building. Many of the buildings that have been turned into garment factories are unsafe in their construction, were never designed for the purposes for which they are being used and are poorly inspected and poorly built, which is threatening this vital economy.
	We have suggested that other markets, such as Morocco, Ethiopia and Burma, would be viable alternatives. Political instability, disruption caused in the provision of power and gas and failing infrastructure are all key factors in the slow down of an undeniably excellent growth record.

Jeremy Corbyn: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work as chair of the all-party group. I agree with her points about the garment industry. Will she comment on the disturbing reports of attacks on religious minorities, particularly Hindus and Christians, over the past few weeks that have resulted in a large number of deaths?

Anne Main: The hon. Gentleman is another member of the all-party group to whom I pay tribute for his sterling work in raising concerns about this issue. We had a presentation from religious minority groups on how persecuted they are. Unfortunately, it is a failing of any democracy when people are not free to express their religion and belief. Bangladesh is a secular country that has many Muslim believers, but many other religions as well. In 1971, it had the proud aim that it would remain secular. It is also a proud member of the Commonwealth. It is a disservice to that country that people from minority religions now feel so oppressed and intimated, with their temples being daubed and disrupted.

Jonathan Ashworth: The hon. Lady is speaking eloquently, and she is a distinguished chair of the all-party group. I want to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I might be wrong, but I think, statistically, that Bangladesh has the second-largest Hindu population in the world. We are all supporters of Bangladesh—I have a huge Bengali community—but the message we should send from this Chamber is that it must respect the human rights of religious minorities.

Anne Main: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have met Amnesty International and other groups that watch the human rights situation, and I know that that situation has, sadly, been a major source of concern over the years.
	When I was in Bangladesh in 2006, I was pretty depressed to read comments in the press about the BNP Government, who were then limping along, giving undertakings to introduce sharia law as part of a coalition deal. That was before the army stepped in. A legal system based on sharia law would certainly disadvantage communities that do not follow that law. The belief espoused in the constitution that Bangladesh should be a secular country and respect other religions was a fantastic aim. It is just sad that on many occasions it has not been delivered.
	The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned that people are in fear of their lives. There has been significant violence on the streets, with petrol bombings, and the leaders of opposition parties have felt intimidated since the election, while the poor are suffering. According to The Guardian, the recent data are that more than 500 people have died and 20,000 people have been injured in the past 12 months, and that more than 100 people have died since the election.
	Other issues are intimidation, disappearances, cross-firing and whether the rapid action battalion is out of control. I went to pay my respects to the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, who gave firm assurances that such issues would be investigated. Whoever leads the Government in Bangladesh needs to take them seriously. When we were there, the members of the all-party group made it clear that we do not have any truck with or particular preference about how the election was conducted, so long as it was fair, or about who is in power, so long as they represent the people and do the best for the people, which is not happening at the moment.

Mark Field: I very much agree with most of what my hon. Friend is saying, but will she put it in context, because many people may wonder why we are talking about Bangladesh? It is a member of the Commonwealth and there is a big Bangladeshi diaspora in this country, but we also spend more than £150 million a year of DFID money on Bangladesh, much of which is handled very well by Bangladeshis on the ground in Sylhet and Dhaka. Will she tell us more about that and about this country’s commitment to the long-term stability of Bangladesh?

Anne Main: I will not speak for too long, because other people want to take part in this important debate. I am sure that we will all have second bites of the cherry during other Members’ contributions.
	A parliamentary answer that I received this week stated:
	“Violence and instability are damaging to Bangladesh’s reputation, economy, and to people’s livelihoods. As the largest cumulative investor in Bangladesh, and the largest bilateral grant donor, the UK supports the people of Bangladesh in their aspirations for a more stable, democratic and prosperous future.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 525W.]
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) is therefore right that we are a hugely important partner for Bangladesh. That is why we are hearing the views of so many hon. Members, even on a day when many Members, and particularly Opposition Members, have an important event to attend after the death of their colleague. Bangladesh really must take this matter seriously. These are not idle concerns.
	There was a report in The Daily Telegraph last Saturday about aid budgets being under threat of being curtailed, cancelled or put on hold. From talking to the Minister of State, Department for International Development, I understand that that is a total misrepresentation. I am glad to have that assurance. Some 70% of our aid to Bangladesh goes to non-governmental organisations, many of which do a fabulous job. The APPG saw some of the projects when we went to Bangladesh. However, the British public, who are also facing tough times, will find it questionable that 30% of our aid goes, in various forms, to the Government. If the Government do not show that they will speak up for and do what is right for all the people of Bangladesh, I do not believe that we should be giving them 30% of the aid. We should give it to the charities and NGOs that are doing a great job and that are accountable. I do not think that we, as one of the largest aid donors, should continue to send money directly to a Government who were elected on 22% of voter participation—some voters felt too intimidated to participate and others that they had no choice—until there is a return of democratic accountability.

Rehman Chishti: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Anne Main: I will give way for the last time, because I am about to finish my remarks.

Rehman Chishti: Does my hon. Friend agree that Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia should put aside their venomous personal differences, which go back decades, and put the interests of Bangladesh first so that the country can move forward?

Anne Main: I absolutely agree.—[Interruption.] I can hear the chuckles that are going around the House because we have had these conversations many times.
	The APPG has received many representations about how the other side—I will put it in that way, because there is the churn of a wheel and next time it will be a different political group—feels deeply that it is kept out of Parliament, that it does not have an opportunity to speak, that the microphones are switched off and so on. We have been to the Parliament as part of a fact-finding group. The participation in debates is virtually zero because people see no point in participating. Whichever party or coalition is in power has to acknowledge that. We do not have a perfect system here, but we have a
	system in which strong opposition makes for better governance. By going there in September, the APPG hoped to show that, despite the fact that we may lob political differences across this Chamber, we can work together in an apolitical fashion to discuss what is in the best interests of Bangladesh. We hoped that the unity that we showed would provide a good example.
	I am sorry to say that the election and the level of non-participation are plunging the country into disarray. We are expecting a big rally by the BNP on 20 January. More people will be injured and suffer violence on that day. It is depressing to think that we cannot get the parties in a room and around a table to hammer out a way forward before the country dissolves into anarchy.

Rushanara Ali: I congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing this important debate through the Backbench Business Committee at such a critical point for Bangladesh and its future.
	I offer my deepest condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives in the terrible clashes over recent months and in the run-up to the election. According to Human Rights Watch, some 300 people have lost their lives since last February in the political violence in Bangladesh. The people of Bangladesh and those who have family connections with it live in fear and with a sense of perpetual frustration at the situation in their country. The hon. Member for St Albans highlighted extremely well the history of the turbulence that the country has suffered since its birth.
	The House was critical in supporting Bangladesh’s independence, and many senior Members of all parties played a critical role in its fight for independence, liberal values, secular principles and freedoms. It is a great source of sadness that we are here today debating a situation that could not be more different from the ideals of the founding fathers of my country of birth, which I am proud to say I am originally from. I am proud of the fact that Members throughout the House have championed the cause of the people of Bangladesh, regardless of the political situation or which party is in power.
	I commend the members of the all-party group on Bangladesh who joined me and the hon. Member for St Albans, who chairs it, on the delegation last September. We went with the intention of encouraging the parties to work together to move towards free and fair elections and to focus on the challenges facing Bangladesh, whether the recent garment industry accidents and the challenges of labour standards and human rights, or the major challenge of climate change. Bangladesh is the most vulnerable country to climate change, which will lead to some 20 million to 30 million climate refugees in the coming decades. People also face grinding poverty, despite the achievements that have been made on reaching some of the millennium development goals, tackling poverty and promoting girls’ education.
	There have been some examples of success, but also political unrest and governance challenges, and the major political parties have failed to find a way of moving towards and achieving free and fair elections. They must focus on the challenges facing one of the
	most populous countries with a majority Muslim population, not to mention the important minority communities of Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and many others that make up the country and built the nation based on values that we can all share. The leaders of Bangladesh should focus on all the challenges that I have mentioned.

Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend is making a heartfelt speech. Those of us who count ourselves as friends of Bangladesh are concerned about what is happening for many reasons. She has mentioned development issues, but is not another tragedy that the progress that Bangladesh has made in recent years in economic and other fields is in danger of being totally undermined by what is happening at the moment? It will do great damage to Bangladesh’s standing in the world in the field of trade and the economy. Is that not yet another reason why the situation should be resolved as soon as possible?

Rushanara Ali: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who has a long-term interest in countries such as Bangladesh, not least because of his interest in climate change but also because of his interest in the economic development challenges that he rightly mentions. Britain is one of the top investors in Bangladesh, and we have major multinationals that operate there. The current violence stands to put that investment at risk, as the all-party delegation found when we visited recently.
	As has been highlighted today, the lack of stability and the lack of focus on investment and on achieving the conditions needed for trade will undermine economic and social development in Bangladesh. It is scandalous and unforgiveable that those in positions of power, of whichever political party, cannot put their differences behind them and focus on the interests, both economic and social, of the country and its people. All political leaders in Bangladesh must face up to that responsibility. That is not about us wringing our hands. Everyone understands that the history of Bangladesh is marred with bloodshed and sacrifice across the political spectrum. The point is that that cycle of violence must stop. Too many lives have been lost and too much is at stake, not only for Bangladesh, but for all of Asia and the international community, for the reasons I have mentioned.

Jeremy Corbyn: During the delegation and the meetings with the Prime Minister, was there any discussion of the normality of an interim Government to oversee elections?

Rushanara Ali: Members from both sides of the House have on a number of occasions raised the need for interim measures to secure and guarantee free and fair elections. Some raised the need for caretaker Governments, which have served the country well in the past. As the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) mentioned, other countries such as Pakistan have followed that lead and have expressed their disappointment that the system has been removed.

Anne Main: The hon. Lady is experienced in the matter, but caretaker Governments have not always served the country well. In 2006, the Awami League had no confidence in the caretaker Government and those who participated in it. That is why the army had to take over.

Rushanara Ali: I was coming to that. The hon. Lady is well versed in both the recent and earlier history of interim, caretaker Governments. She is right that that is why the caretaker Government system ended up being changed.
	The fact is that the opposition parties lack confidence in the election commission. The commission has been recognised by the international community as potentially having the ability to create the framework for free and fair elections but, regrettably, that has not happened. That is what I want to focus on in the rest of my remarks.
	Before I do so, I wanted to mention the concerns, which will be shared by colleagues on both sides of the House, of British Bangladeshis in relation to their family members and their ties with their country of origin. Many have important business and trade ties as well as family ties—they support family members, promote education and give wider support through remittances. Half a million British Bangladeshis are deeply concerned about the situation. It is right that we debate the matter because we need to give our attention to what is happening in Bangladesh.
	As hon. Members have discussed, our nation has major economic interests as well as development interests—we invest a great deal and give a great deal in development assistance. Those interventions cannot be undermined.

Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend raises the concerns of the Bangladeshi community, which makes huge contributions to our society in the UK. The debate is important to them, and our actions to help to improve the situation in Bangladesh are supremely important.

Rushanara Ali: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
	People face a daily grind of transport blockades and national strikes, known as hartals, which undermine trade and investment and create fear for those who want to visit family members and relatives, and for those who have trading ties. In recent months, significant numbers of people have lost their lives—we will hear more about that in the debate—and many have been injured. The backdrop of the war crimes tribunal means a great deal of tension and unrest, alongside the unrest in the run-up to the elections. Such turmoil should be of grave concern to the international community. We need to redouble our efforts to ensure that there is dialogue and an end to the violence.
	Turning to the election, half the seats in the January general election were uncontested. Many have complained that the election process was not, by any standards, free and fair. It is deeply disappointing that a significant proportion of the population did not take part or have confidence in the election. Free and fair elections are an essential component of a functional democracy, and when they do not happen it is a disgrace, not least for Bangladesh, which has such a proud history. According to various reports, some 18 people died as a result of election day violence. According to Human Rights Watch, many innocent civilians, including young children, were caught up in the crossfire of violence in the run-up to the elections and on election day.
	The EU High Representative, Baroness Cathy Ashton, said that she
	“regrets that the main political forces in Bangladesh have been unable to create the necessary conditions for transparent, inclusive and credible elections, despite many efforts, including most recently under UN auspices…The EU remains nonetheless ready to observe the elections should the political conditions allow for the holding of transparent, inclusive and credible elections.”
	It is a source of great regret that that has not happened. We need to move forward and ensure that people have confidence in the electoral process and that change occurs.
	It is a source of great frustration that the leaders of the major political parties in Bangladesh were not able to reach a compromise that would have led to free and fair elections. The international community’s efforts, whether by the UK Government or my party leadership on successive visits by the current Prime Minister and the main Opposition leader Begum Khaleda Zia, or by the UN, the EU and our American allies, have fallen on deaf ears. With the other international challenges in Syria, the middle east and many other countries, the international community has limited capacity. We need the Government and Opposition parties of Bangladesh to recognise that patience is running out. They need to work together to find a solution that respects the interests of the people of Bangladesh.
	Members across the House have raised the issue of minorities. I reiterate my condemnation of the violence, the targeting of minorities—particularly of Hindu communities, but of other communities too—and the burning of villages. That is a disgrace for a country whose history—Bengalis were persecuted when they were a part of Pakistan—is about a fight for minority rights. It is, therefore, a source of great shame that minorities feel persecuted and have experienced persecution. The all-party group on Bangladesh has been working on this issue, and will continue to pursue it vigorously with colleagues across the House and work with the Government to ensure that our voice is strong and united in highlighting that this is of deep concern. The Government must act to protect minorities in Bangladesh.
	There are great concerns about how the law enforcement agencies have acted. The law must be enforced in a proportionate manner and people must have the right to protest peacefully. The onus is also on all groups to protest peacefully, and we have all seen that that has not always been the case. The Bangladeshi Government and the Opposition have a responsibility to ensure that their supporters behave with restraint when they protest.
	The hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) raised the issue of the main leader of the Opposition being essentially under house arrest. That is of grave concern to everyone. Political leaders must have the right to take part in elections. As she rightly said, the pendulum has swung the other way. The cycle of violence, opposition and boycotts of Parliament must come to an end or Bangladesh will remain in a perpetual déjà vu experience of never being able to move on, and history will continue to repeat itself.
	Bangladesh has the potential to advance economically. The World Bank states that growth rates are at about 6%, and Goldman Sachs predicts that it could be one of
	the next 11 countries to become a middle-income country. It has made progress in tackling poverty and improving girls’ education. However, the political dimension to the challenges facing Bangladesh stand to undermine those achievements and the country’s potential. Strategically, it is well placed, with the biggest global markets of India and China on its doorstep, but none of these opportunities are being maximised. Indonesia, another Muslim-majority country, is showing the way, though it too has challenges, with a growing economy and social development, so there is no reason why Bangladesh cannot move forward and achieve—if it gets its political house in order.
	I appeal to those in Bangladesh listening to today’s debate to find ways to work together in the interests of the people of Bangladesh and not in partisan, political self-interest. That is the challenge for everyone in Bangladesh, as it is in any country. I hope that, as we move forward, we can work as partners and continue dialogue, despite our frustrations, to try to achieve free and fair elections and move beyond what has happened in recent months.
	Will the Minister highlight what representations have been made to the Government of Bangladesh to relay our concerns about the elections and the violence? What discussions have there been with our EU and US allies, as well as the UN, since the elections? What steps will be taken to highlight our concerns? What will happen to our development assistance and trade and investment links with Bangladesh?
	As the only person of Bangladeshi-British origin in the House, I take it upon myself to thank all hon. Members for their continued interest in Bangladesh. Despite the frustration that colleagues feel, it is a tribute to them that they continue to take an interest in Bangladesh. It is a country with so much potential, talent and dynamism, and its people want to get on, achieve and progress. Sadly, its politics are holding them back. We are united in wanting to see a future that is peaceful, stable and democratic. I hope we can all work towards that.

Jim Cunningham: What my hon. Friend has said today reflects the wishes of the Bangladeshi community in Coventry. There are a large number of Bangladeshis in my constituency and I think they would appreciate her efforts, since she has entered this House, in the interests of the people of Bangladesh. A lot can be done when people get together—the UN, the UK, the US and others—with good will.

Rushanara Ali: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and suggestion. I know that we can all work towards that aim.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: I am not imposing a time limit, but I suggest that hon. Members take about 10 minutes each. If they do, we will get through nicely.

Martin Horwood: It is a pleasure and, in this context, an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali),
	whose remarks struck exactly the right tone. I also compliment the hon. Members for St Albans (Mrs Main) and for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing this debate and note the wide interest in it, including from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who is unusually silent. He has to remain quiet, being on the Treasury Benches, but I know he has been a great friend to the Bangladeshi and Bengali communities in his constituency.
	Today’s debate reflects the traditionally strong cultural, political, business and diplomatic ties between Bangladesh and the UK. We are fellow sovereign states within the Commonwealth, we are allies in the battle against climate change, in the UN framework convention talks and elsewhere, and there remains the strong relationship fostered by the work of the British Government as part of their historic achievement of spending 0.7% of national wealth on overseas development assistance. The £238 million that DFID spent in Bangladesh in 2013-14 has had an enormous impact: 205,000 more births attended by skilled carers who would not have been there otherwise; 295,000 women giving birth more safely and with better care for their infants; 24 million people benefiting from better protection against floods, cyclones and the impact of climate change, thanks to early-warning systems; and millions benefiting from better water and sanitation. This is a proud record and a demonstration of this country’s commitment to the success of Bangladesh. I should also mention our assistance with transparency and anti-corruption measures, supported by the Bangladeshi Government, and championed by the previous Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). It is right to pay particular tribute to his commitment to getting value for money for the British taxpayer from that spending in Bangladesh.
	It is also right to point out the contribution of the Bangladeshi community to this country. About 500,000 people of Bangladeshi origin live in the UK, employing millions and contributing massively to the British economy and, in particular of course, contributing to British digestion and cuisine. My constituency does not have a huge Bangladeshi community, but its presence in the restaurant trade is still significant. We have the Krori family’s Curry Corner, which rose to national fame through Gordon Ramsay’s television programme; we have Mohammed Rahman’s Spice Lodge, which was a national finalist in the British curry awards and the Tiffin cup, organised in this place; and we have Abdul Mannan’s Brasserie Group, which owns 20 businesses in the Gloucestershire area, employing many people and contributing massively to the local economy. Those people are active members of the local area, supporting communities not only in Cheltenham and Gloucestershire, but back home in Bangladesh—remittances are an important part of the relationship between the two countries. Mr Rahman contributes to primary education, helping students to remain in education, while another constituent, Mr Arosh Ali, has founded a charity to help the Nowder district, and only recently, the wonderful new Koloshi restaurant hosted a fundraising event for victims of the Rana Plaza disaster and advocacy for their rights—another important aspect.
	I recently attended the first Bangladesh victory day celebration in Gloucestershire, which saw 300 people gather at Cheltenham race course to remember the
	history of Bangladesh and to remind people, especially the young generation, of the country’s difficult birth. Millions were displaced and hundreds of thousands—perhaps as many as 3 million—lost their lives in that terrible conflict, which was the birth pang of the state of Bangladesh. Despite its difficult beginnings and years of political violence, however, there are enormous achievements to Bangladesh’s credit: it still has the institutions of democracy and the rule of law, it has, as hon. Members have said, enormous economic potential, and it has achieved a lot in development.
	The UN development programme has highlighted the achievements of Bangladesh in reaching many of the millennium development goals—targets set in the 1990s that many people at the time thought were unrealistic for many countries. Bangladesh has reduced the poverty gap ratio from 17% to 6.5% since 1990; attained gender parity at primary and secondary education; reduced under-5 mortality; contained HIV infections through access to antiretroviral drugs; reduced the prevalence of under-weight children, which has nearly halved from a staggering 66% to 36.5%, virtually meeting the 2015 target of 33%; seen increasing enrolment in primary schools; reduced the infant mortality rate, and so on. Many challenges remain—the incidence of poverty is still enormous; hunger and poverty reduction, primary school completion and adult literacy rates are still a challenge; and the creation of a decent wage economy, particularly for women, is also an enormous challenge—but much has been achieved.
	As hon. Members have rightly said, this progress will be threatened if a fundamentally peaceful and democratic environment is put at risk. There is no simple solution to this problem and no simple blame to be attributed—I have been lobbied by constituents with views on all sides of the debate between the political parties—but I am afraid that the current election situation fits into a pattern of distrust bred by worrying developments in Bangladeshi democracy. The Foreign Office’s latest human rights report emphasises that politics is still done in a violent and confrontational atmosphere, as has been true for many years, as the hon. Member for St Albans said. The situation has echoes of 2006. Human Rights Watch makes it clear that the Awami League Government have many questions to answer, not just about the controversial decision to abandon the system of caretaker Governments during elections, but about press freedom and the imprisonment of political opponents. The decision to suspend the system of caretaker Governments at election time might have been technically justified—after all, there is an independent electoral commission in Bangladesh supported by the British Government—but it clearly further undermined the confidence of civil society and political parties that the elections could be conducted freely and fairly.

Rehman Chishti: A country that I know well, Pakistan, which shares much history with Bangladesh and many of the sad stories of military takeovers and political parties with bitter differences, agreed on a caretaker Government last year and saw its first transition from one civilian Government to another. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the caretaker system, with the support of the electoral commission, has worked well in Pakistan, it can work well elsewhere, including in Bangladesh?

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is not just about the technical merits of electoral commissions or caretaker Governments; it is about building confidence and consensus across the political spectrum.
	The Bangladeshi Nationalist party and other opposition parties have to tread carefully too. Boycotting elections, abandoning the democratic high ground of participation and calling for the overthrow of elected Governments is a dangerous path to tread. Opposition groups and activists have clearly been involved in violence, and there have been accusations, particularly against some of the most controversial members of the opposition, including parties such as Jamaat-e-Islami, of violence against Christian and Hindu minorities, which is particularly concerning. However, hon. Members should avoid taking sides too clearly. I spoke to a Bangladeshi constituent this morning who said that the provision of a caretaker Government was no panacea and not necessarily a solution, as the hon. Member for St Albans pointed out. In a lovely phrase, he said that the two ladies, Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina, held the future of Bangladesh in their hands. It is for those two women to come together and try to overcome this history of hostility and distrust. He said that dialogue was the only solution and that all the progress and potential would be put at risk if it did not happen.
	Let me finish by asking the Minister a couple of questions about what practical steps the UK is taking to put pressure on both sides to get that dialogue going and to engage in meaningful negotiation. In particular, are we collaborating with the Government of India in trying to exercise that kind of pressure? Given its success in negotiating issues between Serbia and Kosovo—almost equally unpromising at the time—will we use the offices of the European External Action Service to exercise that pressure? What more can be done for us to make some practical impact on the situation? It would be a tragedy if a country that has suffered so much, yet which has such potential and has achieved so much in many ways, descended into violence yet again.

Simon Danczuk: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing the time to debate such an important issue—the debate is indeed timely. Let me thank, too, the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main)—perhaps I should say hon. Friend—for helping to ensure that this debate took place and for her excellent chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on Bangladesh.
	It is worth reminding ourselves that Bangladesh is the eighth largest country in the world and is an exceptionally important member of the Commonwealth. Closer to home, as I think has been said, there are around half a million British Bangladeshis living in the UK. We have very strong economic links with Bangladesh, and it is important to debate this today.
	We are aware, not least from what previous speakers have said, that Bangladesh has a history dominated by political factionalism, which came to a head on 5 January this year, with much violence taking place on election day—the country’s 10th parliamentary election day. I believe that there should have been an interim caretaker Government—a point I made to Sheikh Hasina when
	we visited Bangladesh in September last year, but she was clearly not in favour of that. I believe that was a mistake. I understand why the Bangladesh Nationalist party boycotted the elections, failing to contest 147 seats. In a Parliament of 300 seats, the incumbent Awami League and its party allies now hold 232 of them. It is the first time in 23 years that there has been no political opposition in Bangladesh. We can only imagine what this place would be like if there were no political opposition—[Hon. Members: “Wonderful”]. Well, they would say that.
	Reference has already been made to the fact that, as a result of the political turmoil, 180 people have died in Bangladesh since October. On election day, 21 deaths occurred and 47 constituencies were forced to shut down their voting stations because of the violence. It has been reported that voting booths were set on fire and that mob intimidation was commonplace. It is not surprising that the electoral turnout was exceptionally low; people were genuinely afraid of injury or death. As a result, Bangladesh’s economy and its general infrastructure has received a destructive blow and I am seriously concerned that if action is not taken soon, we could see a rapid deterioration.

Gavin Shuker: Is my hon. Friend as alarmed as I am that the International Monetary Fund has, as a result of many of the things he has mentioned, downgraded the Bangladeshi growth forecasts into 2014?

Simon Danczuk: I was not aware of that, but growth is a major concern to which I shall return, and I appreciate my hon. Friend’s point.
	I have three main worries for Bangladesh at this time. The first is the impact on the country’s democracy. We are extremely fortunate in this country that we have a relatively peaceful political culture. That has grown over many years and generations, not by accident but through co-operation and the determination to have peaceful elections. We accept that the winner of our elections has the right to govern. Bangladesh is a young country—it was created in 1971—and it has been steadily making progress on building democracy. We should celebrate that, but I am concerned that this particular election may well derail democracy there. The irony is that the people of Bangladesh are crying out for their voices to be heard.

Nick de Bois: The hon. Gentleman may remember from our trip, as I do, the memorable scenes when we drove out from Dhaka when for miles and miles we saw people—in fact supporting one political party—queuing up in expectation of their leaders. Is not the great failure here that a nation of people who love democracy is in effect being betrayed by their political leaders.

Simon Danczuk: That is an excellent point. The impression one gets from visiting Bangladesh is, as the hon. Gentleman says, that people have a strong desire for democratic politics and view politics in a positive light. It seems almost ironic that we should end up with the country in the position it is in now.
	My second major concern about Bangladesh is the violence. I am worried that violence could escalate even further in the coming weeks and months. We have seen from around the world that when opposition groups are
	excluded from the political process, there is a risk of the more moderate groups being squeezed out, with extremists on all sides gaining greater prominence. We can see that from experience in Northern Ireland and, more recently, in Syria.

Jeremy Corbyn: In the elections he encountered on his visit to Bangladesh, did the issue of the maintenance of a secular constitution come up? Does he agree that an important fact in the country’s history is that it is a secular constitutional democracy?

Simon Danczuk: That issue did not come up during my visit, so far as I can recall, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that this could be viewed as a healthy aspect of Bangladesh’s politics.
	My third and final worry concerns economic development. In recent years, as has been pointed out, the country has made great strides forward in that respect. Gross domestic product growth has been at 6.1% and Bangladesh is on track to meet the goal of halving income poverty by 2015. Despite that, Bangladesh is not a rich country. As I have seen for myself, millions live in desperate poverty.

Anne Main: The hon. Gentleman will recall that when we were in Bangladesh, we saw some excellent factories that were internationally run but, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) said, we also saw sweatshops. If Bangladesh does not want to go back to being an immensely poor country full of sweatshops, it needs international buyers, but they are being scared by all these problems.

Simon Danczuk: The hon. Lady is exactly right. I was coming on to make the point that if this political instability continues, there will be real concerns for Bangladesh’s economic development. The constant strikes, boycotts, violence and sabotage will cost the country literally millions of pounds in lost productivity.
	So what next? The first thing that needs to happen is an end to the violence by both sides and the reopening of dialogue, at least between the two major parties, which need to agree on a way forward to end the current uncertainty. Hon. Members will be aware that other countries in the international community—the United States, Canada and the European Union—have already called for fresh elections. I would urge our Government to take a similar view and to press for that to happen. International observers should be present at elections and I believe that there should be an interim caretaker Government.
	Whatever route is taken, it is clear that the welfare of the people of Bangladesh must be the top priority. Bangladesh can be a model for other countries to follow, but it must first leave behind the factionalism and the division that has haunted its politics. Most ordinary people in Bangladesh are tired of the bickering and the violence; what they want is a better life for themselves and their families. I believe that it is time for the voices of those people to be heard. Bangladesh must focus on the future, and not dwell on the past.

Richard Fuller: I thank the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) for his initiative in enabling Members to comment on the situation in
	Bangladesh. I also echo others in thanking the chair of the all-party group on Bangladesh, my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who has earned the trust and the gratitude of Members through her exceptional leadership of a group that has covered a number of important issues during the past few years.
	I listened with particular interest to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), who spoke with great expertise about this topic, as she does about many others, and I shall begin my speech where she began hers. The impact of the terrible situation in Bangladesh can be measured by the disruption, violence and deaths that affect the lives of ordinary Bengalis in Bangladesh, and also by the natural sympathies and empathies that British Bengalis feel in relation to not just their family members and people from their villages, but the future of their country, given the direction that it has taken under the current political leadership of the Government and Opposition parties.
	Effective democracies require good governance, and good governance requires not just the letter but the spirit of the constitution to be followed. Constitutions are not dry documents on which the ink settled many years ago; they are living documents, and they are given life by the people and partisans who take on public life in democracies to achieve a better outcome for their constituents and their countries. If politicians are to operate effectively, a discourse must take place between the leaders of political parties. Beyond the clash of personalities and the partisanship of party labels, there must be a fundamental understanding of the operation of politics to which both political parties acquiesce, and that requires compromise. It is clear that such a situation has not existed in Bangladesh in the recent past.
	As many Members have observed, the present situation in Bangladesh cannot be viewed in isolation from the sequence of events that led to it. What appeared to many members of the all-party group over the past few years to be a drift away from democracy now appears to be an active pursuit of one-party or one-coalition rule. Let me list the steps that have been taken that I believe point to there being an active strategy, rather than an unconnected series of events.
	Many Members have rightly observed that we should look at the actions of both political parties and should not take sides. That is fair, but only up to a point. I believe that a particular responsibility lies with the governing party of the day. As I list these steps, I think it will become clear, in the case of each of them, that there were decisions to be made, that those decisions were made by the governing party and that, as a result, that governing party is accountable for them. I hope that the Minister will convey to us some of his thoughts about the actions that he would like the current Government of Bangladesh to have undertaken in each instance.
	Let me begin by describing the actions of the Rapid Action Battalion. Like many organisations, it was organised with good intentions—the purpose was to crack down on crime—but, in effect, it is an extra-judicial squad that goes around randomly arresting people and potentially involving itself in wide-ranging corruption. It has a habit of killing ordinary civilians in what Human Rights Watch has euphemistically called “crossfire”. By 2010, more than 600 people had been reported to have been killed by the Rapid Action Battalion in such “crossfire”
	incidents. Its action has continued, and the Awami League-led Government have shown no ability whatsoever to bring it under control.
	Imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, an extra-judicial killing squad roaming around the countryside in Epping Forest or other parts of our United Kingdom, and the Government of the day not taking any action as a result. I think that serious questions would be asked in the House and that the whole of our free society would require the Government to take action, but that has not happened in Bangladesh.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confirm that serious questions have been raised for years about the integrity of the Rapid Action Battalion and the way in which it has operated. That has happened under both Governments, which makes it doubly depressing that the force seems still to be operating with total impunity.

Richard Fuller: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. When issues persist under this Government, he rightly asks the Government questions in the House about how they are dealing with them—that is the right thing to do. Responsibility now lies with the Government in Bangladesh, who are allowing that force to continue its extra-judicial killing.

Gavin Shuker: I agree with much of the hon. Gentleman’s powerful speech. Is he aware that people who in are exile from Bangladesh following the most recent elections have themselves made allegations about the behaviour of the Rapid Action Battalion? One man said that he had been forced to leave the country as a result of a threat issued by the RAB that was simply, “Either you disappear from this country, or you will disappear.”

Richard Fuller: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to my attention. I think that it emphasises the need for accountability on the part of the Bangladesh Government, and the need for them to bring that force under control.
	The second instance in which decisions were made and actions were required involves the sequence of political disappearances in Bangladesh. That, too, has been continuing for a number of years under different political parties. However, when a series of what might be called junior political operators—people who have just become involved in politics—start to disappear, it is the responsibility of any Government to take that very seriously indeed. It is their responsibility to use all the resources at their disposal to try to identify the circumstances that led to those disappearances, to find out who was responsible for them, and to bring whoever was responsible to justice.
	This issue has particular poignancy for me because of the disappearance of Ilias Ali, the former Member of Parliament for Bishwanath. I met him in 2011 when he visited Bedford and brought to my attention the growing problem of political disappearances in Bangladesh. I listened to him intently. I was getting to know him and I thought that he was an interesting fellow, but I sort of thought, “Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you, because you are from the political opposition.” I wish that I had
	listened to him more. Then, in 2012, I saw him in Sylhet. He said “Richard, I am worried about the disappearance of one of my student political leaders.” I was a bit more concerned on that occasion, but I wish that I had listened to him then, because two weeks later, he himself disappeared.
	Even now, no one knows what has happened to Ilias Ali. I do not believe that the Bangladeshi Government are wantonly trying to avoid bringing people to justice, but I do hold the Government of the day accountable for continuing political disappearances in a state that they are supposed to be governing.
	Let me now give my third example. We have talked a little about the war crimes trials in Bangladesh. They, too, were begun with the best of intentions, with the aim of bringing about reconciliation; indeed, the international community was very happy with the structures that were established. It has taken a long time for the people involved in the wars of liberation in Bangladesh to be brought to trial.
	I consider any system of justice that ends in the death penalty to be inherently flawed, because I do not believe in the death penalty as any form of justice. Notwithstanding the potential death penalty, however, the war crimes trials went from auspicious beginnings to become a very tainted process. Indeed, The Economist reported that the chief justice, Mohammed Huq, had to resign after he had
	“prohibited contact with the prosecution and Government officials.”
	The process was further tainted when the rules of trial, which permitted providing for a life sentence, were rewritten so that a death penalty could be imposed on someone, who was subsequently hanged. That undermines people’s faith that, when they are looking for justice, the Government of the day are on their side.

Anne Main: My hon. Friend is making a hugely powerful speech. War crimes were carried out on all sides, in effect, and there have been major accusations about retaliations and retributions, and that only certain people are being pursued for their crimes, rather than there being a process of looking at the crimes as a whole and holding people to account regardless of the party they happen to be involved in. That is not justice either.

Richard Fuller: The chair of the all-party group makes a powerful point that adds to this picture of a sequence of actions that were impacting on political and everyday society in Bangladesh. It was the responsibility of the Government of the day to handle and manage that, but they failed to do so. With the elections and the situation in Bangladesh, a clear thread can be drawn through all activities and actions up to the present day.

John Hemming: On the point about the war crimes tribunals, when representatives of the Awami League in Birmingham came to see me, I made the point that they were responsible for the rules that enabled the death penalty to be used for an Opposition politician. It is clear that that fits within the pattern that has been put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

Richard Fuller: I appreciate that intervention from my hon. Friend.
	The fourth aspect that the House needs to consider is the issue of the caretaker Government system, which other Members have mentioned. My hon. Friend the
	Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) said that that works in other countries. It is perfectly legitimate for countries to determine how they want to handle their own elections, and it is not for the House to tell another country how it should handle its elections, but it is certainly a responsibility of this House to say how effective those systems are in maintaining and promoting democracy, because we have an interest in promoting freedom and democracy around the world, and certainly in countries that are fellow members of the Commonwealth.
	The all-party group has persistently called on the current Government in Bangladesh to install a caretaker Government system. Again, the decision was taken by the Government, not the Opposition. The Opposition leader wanted to see that system, but it was the Government who refused to introduce it—there was an obstinate refusal to accept the caretaker Government system. We did not need to have the wisdom of Solomon to understand where we were heading two years ago into this election, and to know that if Bangladesh did not have a caretaker Government system, it would end up in its present situation. That, again, is a responsibility of the current Government in Bangladesh.

John Hemming: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Fuller: I will not, as I know that other Members wish to speak.
	My final point is about political arrests and detentions. In circumstances in which there were just one or two instances, and if they were connected to a particular crime, a functioning democracy could operate an election—that can work. However, if such a thing is persistent and not tied to a particular criminal act, and if the leader of a political party is detained in their own home, how on earth can an effective election be held? People might say that locking up some of our political leaders here might help our election chances—my hon. Friends might think it could help them in the 2015 election. Seriously, however, how on earth can we believe that the international community is going to say that there has been a free and fair election if the leader of the leading opposition party is not permitted to leave her own home?
	These are a series of indictments against the current Bangladesh Government: the failure to secure and limit the extra-judicial killing by the Rapid Action Battalion; the failure to follow up the disappearances of a wide range of people involved in politics; the tainting of what should have been war crimes trials that could have brought the country together; the obstinate refusal to permit a caretaker Government; and the arrest and detention of political opponents.
	Let me finally talk about some actions that I would like to see. It is appropriate for the Department for International Development to review its expenditure in Bangladesh, but I urge the Minister to ensure that our response to the political turmoil in Bangladesh does not harm the interests of ordinary Bengalis who need support through the alleviation of poverty. Secondly, despite what I have said, I urge the UK Government to continue to work with the Government of Bangladesh to pursue a solution to the current turmoil. Four steps are required, however: the full release of political detainees; the installation of a caretaker Government; the disbanding of the Rapid Action Battalion and an external investigation
	into its activities; and more work and more investment from the UK to strengthen business and trade with Bangladesh, in order to promote entrepreneurship and the growth of business, because that can be the strongest bulwark in the defence of freedom in countries around the world. If we can achieve those four things, they will provide a more effective transition to a peaceful future and a new election in Bangladesh than hoping that somehow, after decades of hostility, the two political leaders themselves will miraculously come up with the solution through discussions.

Jim Fitzpatrick: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), who is an active member of the all-party group and demonstrates his deep knowledge of the issues we are discussing. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on his initiative in securing this debate from the Backbench Business Committee and welcome the support from the chair of the all-party group, the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). I also commend her on the way in which she framed this debate in her excellent opening contribution which was balanced, constructive and informed, and demonstrates why she is our leader as chair of the group. We are very grateful for the work she puts into making it as active and involved as it is.
	What we are hearing is shared despair at the situation in Bangladesh. I am a vice-chair of the all-party group and I have visited the country on five occasions. I have some 15,000-plus constituents in Poplar and Limehouse whose family are from Bangladesh. Some of them support the Awami League and others support the Bangladesh Nationalist party, and I suspect there are even some who support Jamaat.
	My wife is a trustee of the Sreepur village orphanage in Bangladesh and I am a patron. It has being going for 25 years this year and looks after 1,000 destitute mums and kids in Bangladesh. We in Britain are proud of it because it was founded by a British Airways stewardess, Pat Kerr, and promoted by the BBC and British Airways. I also did a two-week stint in Dhaka in Bangladesh in 2008 with my wife on Voluntary Service Overseas. As an aside, I add that my most memorable headline was secured during that visit when, as part of our activities with the non-governmental organisation to which we were attached, we visited Bangladesh’s largest legal brothel, with 1,800 prostitutes, to look at the sexual health advice and the anti-HIV/AIDS activity it was promoting. The headline in the Dhaka Daily Star the next morning was “British Aviation Minister visits brothel.” That was not the most encouraging information No. 10 received that September, but I still managed to front the Labour Government’s initiative on additional aviation capacity in the south-east, which fortunately the Davies commission now seems to be agreeing with. I have strong connections with Bangladesh, therefore.
	The international reaction from Washington, Beijing, Brussels and the UN has been consistent, as it has been in the Chamber today. All are calling for calm, for dialogue and for a fresh approach.
	Many Members have pointed out that Bangladesh is a young democracy, that it is one of the poorest countries in the world, and that it suffers greatly from climate
	change, but it also has strong international support, and it has made dynamic economic progress in its young history and demonstrated great generosity and spirit. That is what makes recent events doubly disappointing, especially after the 2008 election, which had a turnout of nearly 90% and was declared to have been free and fair.
	Subsequent problems have arisen over the war crimes tribunal, the international caretaker electoral arrangements, the use of the death penalty—the hon. Member for Bedford mentioned the adjustments to that—the use of punishments, the unprovoked violence from political extremists and the concerns about overreaction. These have all conspired to exacerbate the problems facing Bangladesh.
	Given the progress made since the 1971 war of independence, the country’s political leaders have serious questions to answer. Both the main political parties have demonstrated immaturity and petulance. The Awami League and the BNP have both boycotted Parliament after election defeats, but both came to their senses. The representation by the hon. Member for St Albans of the history of the problems of the Governments and the different systems involved was a fair one. She demonstrated the open support in this House and across Britain for the Bangladeshi political parties to get together to resolve their difficulties. The challenge for Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the Awami League is how to reach out to Begum Khaleda Zia and the BNP and rebuild confidence. Without stabilisation, Bangladesh’s world standing could be reduced, which would harm its economy. No one wants to see that outcome.
	Yesterday, I and other colleagues met minority groups based in the UK. They were citizens demonstrating in Parliament square to raise their concerns about the violent attacks on Sikhs, Hindus, Christians and others in Bangladesh, which occur regularly at election time. Those attacks must be condemned. Jamaat supporters have been accused of orchestrating a lot of them, but whatever their source, they must be stopped. Both the main parties need to do more to protect the minority communities and to condemn all political, ethnic, religious or cultural violence.

Rehman Chishti: The hon. Gentleman mentions Jamaat. He must have seen the recent statement that Jamaat will not be able to contest any elections in future. If that is the case, might it not result in further violence in Bangladesh? We have only to look at what has happened elsewhere with the Muslim Brotherhood; if it goes underground, there is more likelihood of violence, and that needs to be addressed.

Jim Fitzpatrick: That is a genuine concern. The right balance must be struck in regard to political freedom and the free expression of ideas through democracy, argument and reasoning, and the possible defeat of those ideas at the ballot box. Jamaat has not been prohibited in Bangladesh, although it has been accused of being a terrorist organisation. One would oppose the ambition of some in Bangladesh to create an Islamist republic, but I understand that it is something that some people want. However, they form a tiny minority. In the last election, I think Jamaat got less than 4% of the popular vote. That demonstrates Bangladesh’s great support for its democracy and its secularism.
	I do not think that the political parties in Bangladesh need to be frightened or provoked by Jamaat, or stampeded by it. Arguments can be made that will beat it through the electoral process. The BNP has been in alliance with it, and many commentators are calling on that party to dissociate itself from Jamaat in order to create more political space. I understand that, historically, the Awami League had an alliance with Jamaat. These days, however, Jamaat is putting forward a much clearer political point of view, and the main parties should all dissociate themselves from it and let it stand on its own two feet.

John Hemming: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) have said so far. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in order to build trust and ensure that there are fresh elections, the institution of a caretaker Government will be necessary?

Jim Fitzpatrick: I believe that the calls for new elections are premature at this point. Holding elections immediately would only play into the hands of those who have tried to sabotage the recent ones. The international community has a job to do in stabilising relations within Bangladesh, in giving support to the BNP and the Awami League, and in creating a climate in which elections can take place. I cannot see the Awami League staying in power for a full five-year term; that would be against the spirit of what has happened so far, and against the spirit of what has been said in the Chamber today. It will be very difficult to get to a situation in which elections can take place, however.

Richard Fuller: I want to make it clear that it is important for new elections to be held in the near future. The last election did not confer legitimacy. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it would be okay to go on for two or three years before having a new election, or should one be held within months, as happened in 1996?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The timing of a new election is difficult. I do not think it should be five years hence; it should be held within weeks or months, but I think it will take a bit longer than that. A certain political climate has existed in Bangladesh for several months now, as the all-party group’s visit in September confirmed, and it would not be in Bangladesh’s best interests to call an election now. However, I understand the ambition—and I support the call—for free and fair elections to give greater validity to whoever is in power.
	The recent election has produced nothing but losers. The Awami League has lost some of its moral authority, the BNP clearly lost the election, and Bangladesh has lost some of its international reputation because of its damaged democracy. However, online reports yesterday from The Daily Star in Bangladesh seem to offer some hope. The reports of consensus talks and co-operation between the Awami League and the BNP are encouraging, but there is a long way to go.
	In conclusion, I too want to ask the Minister what contact the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have had with their Bangladeshi counterparts. What message are we sending to Dhaka and to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina? Everyone, including the British Government, our high commissioner in Dhaka and the
	Bangladeshi high commissioner here, wants to see peace and a healthy, secular democracy thriving in Bangladesh. Getting there will be very challenging, however, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate.

Bob Blackman: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who has a long, distinguished history with the people of Bangladesh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on initiating the debate through the Backbench Business Committee, and on giving Members an opportunity to express their views on this important matter.
	I start from the principle that we should exercise caution when commenting on another country unless we have had a chance to visit it and see the situation on the ground at first hand. I had the good fortune to visit Bangladesh some 18 months ago, as part of a trip organised by the Conservative Friends of Bangladesh. My hon. Friends the Members for St Albans and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and I saw at first hand many of the issues that have been raised today. I have to say that the Parliament in Bangladesh was bizarre. We three Members were greeted almost like visiting royalty. We were presented to the Parliament, which was half empty, and witnessed its Prime Minister’s question time. It was a far cry from what we experience in this House each week. Questions to Government Ministers were scripted and delivered by Government Back Benchers only. No members of the Opposition asked any questions whatever of the Prime Minister, because they were not there—

Anne Main: And there were no interventions.

Bob Blackman: Indeed. Clearly, a fledgling democracy that has not yet established itself into a proper parliamentary democracy had taken adversarial politics to the extreme.
	We had the opportunity of meeting all three party leaders, and it was clear to me that there is bitter hatred between them and no sense of co-operation between the parties, which is a problem for a parliamentary democracy. It can work in a military dictatorship because it does not matter there, but the proper orders of priority are needed in a parliamentary democracy.

Anne Main: My hon. Friend mentioned that we met three parties. Just in case anyone is puzzled, we met the Jatiya party and not the Jamaat-e-Islami party. I thought I would clear that up in case anyone was wondering which parties we are talking about.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reminder.
	I also think there was complacency from the Government of the day. I remember their Chief Whip telling us, “Don’t worry, when we come to those elections the BNP will not boycott them because they fear losing their seats.” That Government believed that they could bend and twist things but everything would be all right and there would be an election. They expected not only that they would win that election, but that the BNP
	would bow and participate fully in it. Clearly, that view was misguided and wrong, and it has led directly to the current impasse.
	Other hon. Members have referred to the violent history of Bangladesh—how it began and what has happened—and I do not intend to dwell on that because it has been well covered. Although Bangladesh has advanced economically, the bitter poverty that exists there must be addressed. We were able to see children from the slums attending a school, and the only clothes they had were those donated by British non-governmental organisations—

Anne Main: It was the Hope school.

Bob Blackman: Indeed. It was a great thing to see those children being educated, to give them a chance of a better life, but the poverty in the whole of the country is extreme and must be addressed.
	We also witnessed the problems caused by the risk of earthquakes, and I will never forget my hon. Friend being winched down the outside of a building in a rehearsal of what could happen in an earthquake. It took great courage for her to carry out that act—I am not sure she was aware of what was going to happen when she was put into the winch in the first place. That demonstrated to us that the Bangladesh Government are making preparations to deal with natural crises that could occur.
	Bangladesh’s infrastructure, however, is horrendous. Dhaka’s traffic is probably the worst in the world, as the city is permanently gridlocked, and the condition of the roads is a disgrace. I cannot forget the 12-hour trip we took by rutted road from Sylhet to Dhaka—my body has not recovered since. The key point to make is that there is a great opportunity for investment in the country’s infrastructure, which will improve the ability of farmers and industrialists to produce the goods that will drive forward the country’s major economy.
	DFID funding must be at centre of our thoughts, because it is where we can bring pressure to bear. We saw how DFID and Government funding has enabled cataracts to be treated in the outlying communities in a way that shamed our national health service. People who have the first signs of blindness as a result of cataracts can be spotted and then treated quickly for the princely sum of £27 per eye. That shows that when a good project is implemented it can be done properly and effectively, and is a demonstrable example of what can be done elsewhere.
	However, DFID funding—to the tune of £5 million a year, I believe—has also gone towards community workshops to build community capability. Clearly that has not worked, because if it had the parliamentary elections and democracy in Bangladesh would be far better. I hope that DFID will review that funding. When we returned 18 months ago, we questioned whether the money was being used in the best way possible, given that other projects could clearly be organised through NGOs to provide a better future for the people of Bangladesh. Those issues must be addressed and the funding needs to be reviewed, so that we bring pressure to bear on the Government in Bangladesh. We need to say, “If you do not make sure that the rights of minorities and of the country are protected, we will have to reconsider whether that funding continues.” I must add
	a word of caution, because the money that goes to the NGOs is being spent extremely wisely, well and effectively; it is the money given to the Government to spend that is of great cause for concern, for not only our taxpayers, but the people of Bangladesh.
	The current persecution of minorities, with the murders of Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and other minorities, is an absolute disgrace. We should condemn those murders outright. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take up the issue, and make sure and demonstrate to the Government of Bangladesh that these things cannot be allowed to continue, in any shape or form. Any representations should be made through our Foreign Secretary and our embassy. The rights of those individuals are paramount and they must be allowed to continue to celebrate their religion, their ethnicity, their background and their history.
	Finally, I think that there is a potential way forward for the future. I was a bit disturbed to receive an e-mail from the BNP about the situation in Bangladesh—I differentiate the BNP of Bangladesh from the pernicious, evil organisation that exists in this country, but I was not sure at the time which had sent me this e-mail. The leaders of two major political parties in Bangladesh hate each other and will not co-operate in any shape or form, but surely there is an opportunity for the Commonwealth and for the British Government to play a role in bringing together the disparate parties in Bangladesh and hammering out a deal. Such a deal would allow a caretaker Government to proceed; and it would allow us to move towards free and fair elections in the near, but not necessarily immediate, future, in order to allow the fledgling democracy of Bangladesh to flourish and to encourage and promote a Parliament in Bangladesh that mirrors how we operate in this country. That would entail free and frank exchanges, an opportunity for the Opposition the criticise the Government and the opportunity of saying, “That will be done in a fair way” It would also entail the freedom of the press.
	At the moment, press freedom is seriously threatened, because politicians and journalists disappear and nobody knows where they have gone, whether they have been arrested or whether they are still alive. A situation of fear breeds uncertainty and the worst case scenario. I ask our Foreign Secretary and our Ministers to make representations to the Bangladeshi Government, asking them to come to their senses and reach a negotiated settlement, so that there can be a bright and prosperous future for the people of Bangladesh, because the young people there deserve it.

Jeremy Corbyn: Along with others, I welcome this debate, and pay tribute to those who applied for it and to the all-party group on Bangladesh. I have a substantial, but not huge, Bangladeshi community in my constituency, and I have had close relationships with them and with the wider Bangladesh community for all the time I have been an MP.
	I agree that we cannot change the tragedy of the history of Bangladesh, but it is worth recalling a couple of highly significant points in its history. It was originally created as East Pakistan during the tragedy of partition
	in 1947, and there was a tragic loss of so many lives during the wars that followed. To divide a country called Pakistan by 1,000 miles of another country was inevitably going to lead to an unstable relationship and problems. The many uprisings in what later became Bangladesh against Pakistani rule and the abuse of power by the authorities in East Pakistan led to the war in 1971, and eventually the success of the Mukti Bahini forces, which brought about the independence and recognition of Bangladesh.
	It is true that disgraceful atrocities were committed during that war and that very large numbers of people died. It is also absolutely correct that those who commit atrocities should be brought to justice however long that takes. That surely is what we believe in when we hold international war crimes tribunals. In that sense, it is right that the Government of Bangladesh, led by Sheikh Hasina, set up the war crimes tribunal. My concern, and that of many others, was over the difficulties that international observers faced in observing those trials. Concerns were expressed about them and the execution of one very prominent person that followed the tribunal. Apparently, there was indifference by the Government of Bangladesh to universal concerns around the world about the use of the death penalty. Let me reiterate that I for one cannot accept the death penalty in any circumstances or on any occasion. The message has to be that justice and the judicial system must be seen to be independent. However, I endorse the point that Governments are entitled to operate a war crimes tribunal and use their judiciary to look at atrocities that have been committed. They should also ensure that all witnesses and legal representatives are secure and safe, that there are international observers and that international norms are followed.
	The more recent history of Bangladesh is about the economic problem that the country faces. It has a large population and is one of the largest countries in the world. It faces enormous environmental challenges from water supply—either over-supply or under-supply of fresh water—and the problems of managing a river system that emanates from a neighbouring country and of rising sea levels and the dangerous floods that occur as a result.
	Bangladesh also has an economic model that is difficult to sustain. It wants to become part of the world trade system by exporting garments, and I applaud that, but the problem is that with the beggar thy neighbour policies of the World Trade Organisation, the garment industry quickly moves itself from one low-wage economy to another, to another and so on. We now have the prospect of Chinese companies opening factories in Bangladesh because wages in China, while very low, are relatively high compared with Bangladesh. If Bangladesh then raises its wages to any decent level, the danger is that the garment industry will up sticks and go somewhere else. We have to think about the cheap clothes that we buy on the high streets of this country, and indeed of the United States and the rest of Europe, and the appalling working conditions that are behind all that.

Anne Main: That was the focus of the all-party report. The few extra dollars or pence that would be needed to give a fair wage was not an issue to those who were involved in the garment industry. It was the whole infrastructure deficit that was more likely to drive businesses
	away. The problem is not in paying the workers in Bangladesh but in the Government not tackling the infrastructure deficit, which is making businesses question their presence there.

Jeremy Corbyn: To its credit, the Government of Bangladesh did increase the basic minimum wage, and that was welcome. None the less, I have attended meetings with the International Labour Organisation and trade unions from this country and Bangladesh about the abominable working conditions and safety of buildings, to which the hon. Lady rightly drew our attention, and the loss of life as a result of fire. We must bear all that in mind.
	Before I conclude, let me turn to the violence that has been committed against human rights activists and religious and ethnic minorities, and to the numbers of people who have disappeared over the last few months and years. There can be no acceptance anywhere in the world that it is legitimate to persecute people. In the case of Bangladesh, the persecuted happen to be Christians or Hindus, but it would be no more correct for any other society to pursue and persecute people because they are Muslims. Surely the norm of the United Nations universal declaration of 1948 was that one accepts and respects religious and ethnic diversity in any and every society. I welcome the fact that Bangladesh’s constitution of 1971 is a secular one and guarantees rights of religious assembly and religious freedom, but the reality is that forces and gangs—in some cases funded elsewhere, and in some cases parastatal—have been killing and persecuting religious minorities, which is simply not acceptable. We must send out a strong message to that effect.
	My final point is about how a democracy works. A democracy works if there is an open, free and fair electoral system. It also requires an independent judiciary, an independent media, security for those who are reporting, and the right of assembly and of free speech. All those things have been challenged in Bangladesh, and the violence and the deaths that we have seen are simply not acceptable.
	When the election took place, the Awami League was inevitably going to win it, because the Opposition simply did not participate. I have read the Awami League report on the elections, and I can kind of see the point that it is making, but it hardly confers legitimacy on a Government when the Opposition do not take part, so we can hardly say that it was a democratic representation of the will of the people. Indeed, I have had it said to me by people in the London Bangladeshi community that the BNP might well have won the election had it taken part. I do not know whether that is the case, but we do know that the current impasse has to be broken in some way. There have to be talks with all the parties and there has to be freedom of movement of all political leaders and an acceptance that that is really not a credible way for the Government of Bangladesh to continue to behave. It is not for us to say what should happen, but if there are to be legitimate talks with all political parties and representatives, there is likely to be a call for fresh elections.
	Human rights, peace and democracy are at stake. Sadly, many of the very poorest people in Bangladesh live in disgraceful and appalling conditions. Working conditions are appalling and we look to a strong democracy in Bangladesh and support from the rest of the world to
	conquer that poverty and bring about a decent life for the people of Bangladesh. That is what the war of 1971 was about. It was not about the discrimination and the killing of people because of their views.

Neil Parish: It is good to follow the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who gave a good résumé of the history of Bangladesh. I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) for securing this debate.
	My interest in the country stems from the fact that I was an EU election observer in 2008, along with Dr Charles Tannock, Nirj Deva and Koenraad Dillen from the Netherlands. What was interesting, and perhaps depressing in many respects, was the great hope that came after those elections. Before them, there had been a huge amount of electoral fraud in the country. In 2008, we saw one of the best electoral rolls ever seen anywhere in the world. There were 80 million photographs of the individuals who were to cast their votes. I expected the electoral roll to contain rather fuzzy pictures from which one might not be able to recognise the voter, but I can assure the House that, although the photographs were quite small they were recognisable.
	That election was carried out in a pretty free and fair way, resulting in a landslide for the Awami League. In a way, that is what brought about many of the problems we see today. I find it depressing. In 2008, Sheikh Hasina was under house arrest under the then military Government. She was released to take part in the election, and there was talk about whether the military were going to back off from the government of Bangladesh. All those things came about and there was a transition to a form of democratic Government. As other hon. Members have said today, when we are in government we are not always delighted to get a lot of opposition from the Opposition, but that is how democracy works and how we are held to account. Once a party has 80% or 90% of the seats, there is no opposition. It becomes a dictatorship, albeit by a different route. That is what is fundamentally wrong with what is happening in Bangladesh today. It is ironic that Sheikh Hasina is treating her opponents in exactly the same way as she was treated.
	I know that it is not always easy to find the Nelson Mandelas of this world in every country, but there comes a time when it would be lovely if someone could stand up and say, “Let’s learn from the past, let’s forgive and let’s have some reconciliation.” The trouble is that that is not happening. Members have clearly made the point today that Bangladesh needs a Government who can rule on behalf of all the people. We want Bangladesh to remain a secular country; we do not want to see the persecution and even perhaps the murder of Christians and Hindus. Those are things that we cannot accept.
	It is very difficult for us, as I am sure the Minister is aware—particularly if we are seen in some ways to be the old colonial power—to say that we will tell people how to run their country and how to run a democracy. We have had a form of democracy for 500 or 600 years —or even, one might argue, for nearly 1,000 years, although that is not to say that I think that William the Conqueror was particularly democratic. It has taken us
	a long time to get to where we are and some might argue that our democracy is not entirely perfect even now, but younger countries with huge divisions find it more difficult to have a democracy. However difficult it is for us to intervene, what we can say is that we give a great deal of money to help Bangladesh and we must consider how the money given to the Government is spent. We expect the Government of that country to show some recognition of human rights, recognition of a free press and respect for opposition. The Minister has the wisdom of Solomon and will, I am sure, be able to provide all the ideas we need, but we need to put the pressure on.
	We must also remember, as other Members have said, that the people of Bangladesh are very hard working. They are very poor yet they will work hard to bring themselves out of poverty. We must help them by targeting the areas where we want the Government to change rather than targeting the people. That is always difficult.
	Bangladesh is almost one huge river valley, so the soil is very fertile but also prone to flooding. Building anywhere is difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans made the point that many of the buildings are not structurally sound because of what they have been built on and how they have been built.
	Should we as individuals boycott clothing made in Bangladesh? I do not believe that we should, because it makes the situation worse, but we need some checks and balances on where those clothes have come from, what the factories are like, how the workers are treated, how they are paid and what sort of conditions they are in. We are right to debate that in the House.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) that it is not our duty in this House to tell Bangladesh when the next election should be, but we should not ignore the situation. We cannot ignore a Government who were not elected in a free and fair way in the recent elections. If fewer than half the seats are being contested, that is no way to run any form of democracy, and if vengeance is then to be taken on political opponents, that is no way to run a country. Let us put the pressure on where we can and say to Bangladesh that it has to change its ways and go back to the ballot box. The timing is for Bangladesh to decide, but we and the international community must add to the pressure.
	I am delighted to have been able to make this speech although I am disappointed that the great hope of 2009, with the landslide and Sheikh Hasina coming into power, has not delivered what we want for Bangladesh. We should not walk away from Bangladesh now, however, as we have to support it through these difficult times. Ultimately, the country has a bright future.

Gavin Shuker: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak in this vital debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing it.
	It is right that we in this country, in all humility but with an active sense of participation, should work for the peace, stability, good governance and prosperity of the people of Bangladesh, not just because of the great warmth felt towards the Bangladeshi community living
	in this country but because Bangladesh has a fantastic series of opportunities to succeed in the forthcoming years. If we get the governance of Bangladesh right, the generation that is growing up there now could see its nation pushing towards becoming a middle income country and tackling many of the issues that will arise as a result of climate change.
	I am reminded today that the transition to a democratic system is not just about how people vote but about all sorts of other forms of civic engagement and processes. Becoming a democratic country does not just require majority rule; it also requires minority rights. It requires a political system that emerges, respects differences and tolerates alternative opinions. At its heart, it should require people to come together in a way that does not ignore difference but says that there is a future available to a country that would not be birthed without people coming together to achieve those aims.
	Today, our thoughts are dominated by the concerns about the 10th general election, held on 5 January. The lack of widespread support for it from the world community and from the parties that would have participated in that election is troubling, and rightly so. I think that it was right for the US and the EU not to send observers, which would have lent legitimacy to a process that has clearly been discredited. Indeed, only four international observers participated in the election.
	The tension between the Awami League and the BNP led to around half the seats going uncontested. Of course, it is a feature and not a bug of the Bangladeshi political system that the first-past-the-post system further accentuates the disconnect between the proportion of people voting for one party and the number of seats it wins. It has led to a pendulum effect, with power going backwards and forwards between the parties.
	I associate myself with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) when he warned against falling into the trap of thinking that it is six of one and half a dozen of another, because it is not about choosing sides. Fundamentally, it is about saying that our political leaders have a responsibility, when given the opportunity, to set the conditions. It is not just about what benefits us in our parties; it is about the long-term prosperity of a nation.
	Setting the right tone is incredibly important. That is something we need to be aware of in this House, which is why I hope that today’s debate will be welcomed by all those with a genuine interest in the future of the Bangladeshi people. We offer it in a spirit of humility, acknowledging that in no country are democratic processes perfect—we are all trying to improve things. However, where attention can be drawn to human rights abuses, where, as hon. Members have said today, concerns point towards a system in which injustice can be institutionalised, and where the abuse of power can lead to large groups of people feeling completely frozen out of the democratic process, it is right to point that out and condemn the situation that allows it to come about.
	It has been asked today whether it was right to press on with the election or whether it would have been better to have an interim Administration until such time as full and free democratic elections could be held. I think that it was right that, as a nation, we chose to put out a series of statements making it clear that we did not believe that the election was free and fair, but surely the time ahead will be vital.
	Today’s debate is taking place in the Parliament of a country that has strong links with the Bangladeshi nation, not least through the diaspora in our constituencies and communities. If we ever needed a statement on the incredible strides that that young nation—young demographically and young given its date of birth—can make, we need only look to the entrepreneurial spirit of the many people of Bangladeshi origin in our nation. They are a fantastic group of people and a fantastic work force. They are working incredibly hard, delivering the kind of growth that Bangladesh will need to see in the coming years to tackle many of its problems.
	Those people in our communities will rightly say that for the world community to look on Bangladesh as though it should not have to live up to our expectations of democratic nations is deeply offensive to its people. Sometimes we view parts of the world as though they should not step up to what they could be—true participants in the world community, with processes and systems that reflect their leadership role.
	Our partnership with Bangladesh involves not only business links, but international aid, development and support. I believe that there is a strong story to tell about our involvement, but there are also strong expectations. Bangladesh is one of the top five nations that we support through DFID. There are a number of figures available, but roughly £250 million of UK taxpayers’ money is spent in Bangladesh, and around 10% of that goes to big programmes aimed at strengthening political participation and safety and justice. I for one would never argue that we should go around the world with a big stick, trying to increase leverage in places where that is inappropriate, but surely it must be right, in the light of recent deeply concerning events, for DFID to review not the viability of those programmes, but their effectiveness.
	We provide direct funding for the Bangladeshi Government, and the NGOs and multilateral agencies are, by and large, very successful in their much-needed work, and in strengthening governance and participation in the political process and civic society. However, we must ask how we can make those programmes more effective to ensure that the leverage that is rightly being exercised by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is backed up with participative support from DFID.
	Finally, I want to say a few words on the international trade links with Bangladesh. The all-party group’s report has rightly been widely welcomed by Members on both sides of the House for its instructive message. I think that we have a fantastic trade relationship. We must acknowledge that there is an economy coming through—the garment industry and other industries—that benefits us as well as them, and that is vital. That is why I believe that it was so short-sighted for the Government to defund the work being done by the International Labour Organisation, the body that ensures decent standards and working practices in those places. I welcome DFID’s approach in acknowledging that the ILO was an important participant in the process of raising standards in Bangladesh and urge it to increase the amount of money once again going into the ILO’s work.
	Our relationships with Bangladesh are obviously political. They cross diaspora communities. They come from a deep-rooted sense of values and a shared history. But the future of those relationships relies upon us treating Bangladesh as a country that can step up to the requirements of being a modern world economy. Through
	our participation and all the ways we can exercise our agency here in the UK, we should work with a clear sense that majority rule, minority rights and true shared decision making will create the only future path for the people of Bangladesh. In that light, I hope that this debate will go a long way towards pointing out the future direction for the people of that fantastic country.

Kerry McCarthy: I congratulate all Members who have taken part in the debate on their well-informed contributions, many of which result from personal visits to Bangladesh. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk)—he has made his apologies for having to leave the debate early—for stepping in at short notice to secure the debate, which is timely, given that the elections took place on 5 January.
	I also want to say briefly that I am sure that we are all mindful of the reason why the debate on child neglect that had been scheduled for today was cancelled. My thoughts are with the family, friends and many colleagues of Paul Goggins who are paying their final respects to him today.
	As several hon. Members said, Bangladesh has long been a valued partner of the UK. Obviously it is a young country, but our historical links with the region and its people go back long before its formation. We also have a sizeable diaspora community in the UK. Indeed, Bristol currently has the pleasure of having not only its first Muslim lord mayor, but its first lord mayor of Bangladeshi origin, Councillor Faruk Choudhury, who has made a real impact as a role model for younger people in the community.
	As I said, the elections were held on 5 January. We have heard already about the widespread concern that has been expressed by the international community and the condemnation of shocking acts of violence and intimidation. I want to focus my remarks mostly on the elections, given that they are so recent. As we have heard, more than half the 300 seats were uncontested. Some candidates from other parties, I understand, tried to withdraw their names from the ballot paper. Some from smaller parties were elected, but more than 100 candidates from the ruling Awami League were elected unopposed, and 48 million registered voters out of 92 million could not vote. Indeed, it is reported that people could vote in just two of the 20 constituencies in Dhaka, so it is no surprise that the turnout was disappointingly low. The Government’s official turnout figure was 39% to 40%, but that has been queried, given that there was no turnout at all in many parts of the country because the seats were uncontested.
	Furthermore, election day and the weeks preceding it saw deplorable acts of violence. There were arson attacks on polling stations, including more than 120 schools. There were reports that an election officer was beaten to death on polling day, and that 440 polling stations closed early due to security concerns. Human Rights Watch reported that 120 people lost their lives in pre-election violence, and at least 18 people died on election day. Media reports have said that many were shot by police.
	The reasons for the violence and the failure of the elections to proceed as we would have hoped are varied and complex. The Bangladesh Nationalist party, along
	with several of the smaller parties, decided to boycott the election in protest against the Government’s decision not to allow a neutral caretaker Government to take charge in the run-up to the elections. As we heard from the hon. Member for St Albans and others, such a practice had been in place since the 1996 elections. Meanwhile, there was a court order preventing the Jamaat-e-Islami party from participating. There were also reports that some candidates tried to withdraw, but were prevented from doing so, and that party representatives were arrested or forced to leave Bangladesh. After the BNP’s leader called for a march for democracy in late December, hundreds of opposition supporters were arrested, and demonstrators were prevented from reaching Dhaka. There were reports of arbitrary arrests and the indiscriminate use of force. Ms Zia was, in effect, placed under house arrest, with security forces preventing her from leaving her home. Those are all deeply troubling human rights violations.
	We believe that the European Union, the United States, the Commonwealth and others were right not to send election observers, given concerns about the election arrangements, and the associated violence and intimidation. We support the remarks by the EU High Representative, Cathy Ashton, condemning the violence and highlighting the concern that some of the attacks targeted women and children, and religious and ethnic groups. Many of our international partners support her conclusion that conditions were not met for transparent, inclusive and credible elections.
	It is hoped that the dialogue everyone—particularly the UK, the EU, the UN and the Commonwealth—is calling for will enable all people in Bangladesh to participate in transparent and credible elections in the future. We have heard calls today for fresh elections, with differing views about whether they should take place within the next few months, or if more time is needed to put the appropriate mechanisms in place. I know that it is early days, but I would be keen to hear from the Minister what discussions the Government have had with the parties in Bangladesh and what role we could play in ensuring that elections that are satisfactory to the majority of the people in Bangladesh happen in the near future, no matter what the outcome.
	The hon. Member for St Albans talked about the troubled history of elections in Bangladesh. She also discussed the persecution of religious minorities, which is a matter of great concern to hon. Members—it has been raised on a number of occasions, and it is important that it is flagged up. She talked about the all-party group’s visit to Bangladesh last September, which sounds very successful. Members of Parliament get criticised quite a lot for going on such overseas visits, but Members who took part in that visit feel that they are now informed about the situation so that they can take part in this debate. There is no substitute for being on the ground in a country and witnessing at first hand what is happening there.
	The hon. Lady spoke about the garment industry, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). The role of consumer power in flagging up these issues is something that we have not really mobilised. There are brilliant campaigns such as Labour Behind the Label, a Bristol-based organisation, and
	groups such as War on Want have campaigned on the matter in the past. We need to do more to flag up the ethics of our high street and what we are actually buying.

Anne Main: I thank the hon. Lady for her favourable comments. The report by the all-party group, which we have handed to DFID—we hope for a response—explores many suggestions, such as kite marks. We would love to have a response from the Minister to some of them.

Kerry McCarthy: Given that the report has been submitted to DFID, it would not be my place to respond on its behalf, but my colleagues in the shadow DFID team, my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), are doing a lot of work on how we can make the high street more ethical. I am sure that we can work on that on a cross-party basis and with the support of those such as the all-party group.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) spoke from her unique perspective as the sole Member of the House of Bangladeshi origin—indeed, she was born in the country. She spoke eloquently about the frustration that is felt by members of the community over here. No matter which political party they may be aligned with or which party they may want to win the election, they all have a desire to see political stability and order restored in Bangladesh, not least because the current situation is putting at risk the economic investment that is lifting the country out of poverty. She made a powerful plea for people in power to put their political differences behind them in the country’s interests and said that the country’s politics is holding it back. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale echoed those sentiments, as did the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish).
	I thought at one point that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) was after a free meal in one of the curry houses in his constituency. I hope that he name-checked all of them and did not leave anyone out or he will be given a cold welcome next time he visits. He talked about the impact of aid and the contribution made by the diaspora, as did the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).
	My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South, who speaks as someone with not just a significant Bangladeshi diaspora in his community, but a role as a shadow DFID spokesman, talked about the Department. The last thing we want to do is to abandon a country just because the democratic process is not perfect, but we need to see how FCO and DFID funding, and the work taking place in the country, can be pulled together so that it is about supporting better political engagement and strengthening governance to ensure that aid money for poverty projects is well delivered, going into the right hands and benefiting the people. The hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) was entirely right to raise concerns about extra-judicial killings and the Rapid Action Battalion, about which I was talking to somebody only the other day.
	Let me turn to the human rights situation. Last year, as a result of political violence, Bangladesh was added to the FCO’s human rights report as a case study. It is estimated that 500 Bangladeshis were killed in political violence in 2013, with injury caused to thousands of
	others, predominantly associated with the international crimes tribunal’s investigations into the 1971 war. I have seen harrowing reports. Human Rights Watch has documented evidence that the security forces were responsible for some of the deaths during the protests. It is imperative that those responsible are held to account. The incidents provided further evidence of the need to promote freedom of expression and association in Bangladesh. People in Bangladesh and some external observers have argued that the tribunal process is flawed, and there are troubling reports that at least one witness has been attacked and killed.
	The verdicts have led to the death penalty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North said, most of us are united across this House in condemning the use of capital punishment in all cases. I know that that is not a unanimous view, but I think I am right in saying that it is probably a majority view. Labour Members regard the death penalty as inhumane. As in the case of the execution of Abdul Quader Molla of the Jamaat-e-Islami party last month, it serves only to heighten tensions and spark further violence. The Government therefore have our full support in calling on Bangladesh to implement a moratorium on the use of the death penalty and to uphold the international covenant on civil and political rights. It is important, especially now that we are members of the Human Rights Council, that the abolition of the death penalty continues to be raised at the council and with our Commonwealth partners.
	As has already been mentioned, the people of Bangladesh had our deepest sympathies following the Rana Plaza factory disaster last April, in which 1,100 people lost their lives and 2,500 were injured. We have discussed the protection of ILO standards within the garment industry and the hidden human costs associated with the ability to buy high street products in the UK at such a low price. I commend the TUC, among others, for its work with retailers to secure support for an accord to fund an independent and much-needed health and safety inspection body for Bangladeshi factories.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the role of the TUC. Will she also commend War on Want for its support for the garment workers and its practical support for helping union organisation in Bangladesh which, at the end of the day, is the best way to bring about health and safety in the workplace?

Kerry McCarthy: I agree entirely. I gave War on Want a little name check earlier, along with Labour Behind the Label, which also does excellent work. My hon. Friend has pointed out that China is now moving production to Bangladesh because it is even cheaper to produce garments there than in China. How do we tackle the issues involved? How do we raise terms and conditions, wages and living standards in countries such as Bangladesh in such a way that production is not displaced to another country that will undercut it even further? The only way that can be achieved is by implementing ILO standards universally so that there is not a race to the bottom and everything is about quality and maintaining good standards across the board.
	The UK was a founder member of the ILO and, given the Government’s professed commitment to business and human rights—they published their action plan in
	September—it is important that the UK does more to work with the international community and British businesses to promote worker safety and employee rights with our partners overseas. Our immediate focus, however, must be on how we can secure peaceful and open elections in Bangladesh so that the people can express their political will in a democratic ballot. I am keen to hear the Minister’s assessment of the 5 January elections, of the role he sees the international community playing in trying to address some of the issues that arose from them—not just the violence, but the fact that many people in Bangladesh feel that democracy was not served—and of what we can do to ensure that democracy is better served in the future.

David Lidington: I pay tribute to all those who have contributed to the debate: my hon. Friends the Members for St Albans (Mrs Main), for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), for Bedford (Richard Fuller), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).
	Listening to the speeches of Members from different political parties, I have been struck that they share a common commitment to and a passion—I do not think that is too strong a word—for the well-being, future prosperity and stable democratic development of Bangladesh. Coupled with that sense of commitment, we heard in a number of speeches a sense of frustration, impatience and almost anger at times at how difficult it had been to make such progress, and especially at the events of the recent parliamentary election.
	The Government believe that it is peaceful and credible elections expressing the genuine will of the voters that are the true mark of a mature and functioning democracy. The facts are that on Sunday 5 January, parliamentary elections were held in Bangladesh in accordance with the constitution, as a number of hon. Members have said, but regrettably they took place without the opposition 18-party alliance, for the reasons that have been debated extensively. As a consequence, we were left with a situation in which just over half the seats were uncontested, which denied more than 46 million out of 92 million voters any say at the ballot box, and even in the contested elections turnout was low. That is an unsatisfactory and deeply disappointing outcome.
	The day after the elections, 6 January, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi issued a public statement making those points and condemning the acts of intimidation and unlawful political violence. It has been reported that no fewer than 500 people lost their lives because of political violence during 2013. Twenty-one deaths were reported on polling day and more than 100 polling centres, many of them schools in very poor rural areas, were burned down. The Government are shocked and saddened by the high number of deaths and we urge all Bangladeshi political parties to take responsibility for the situation and to look actively for solutions through dialogue, not through political harassment and violence.
	All of Bangladesh’s political parties share a clear and unequivocal responsibility to work together to strengthen democratic accountability as an urgent priority and to build the willingness and capacity for Bangladesh to hold fully participatory parliamentary elections without the fear of intimidation or reprisals. I am pleased that the Bangladesh Nationalist party has announced a suspension of its blockade programme and that Begum Zia has publicly condemned violence, including attacks on minorities. That is a positive step, although we would welcome further bold moves by both political parties that lead to dialogue between them. Above all, it is important that the political parties put the interests of the Bangladeshi people first.
	I have been asked by a number of hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, about action since the elections. The Bangladeshi Government were only sworn in on 12 January and as yet no Foreign Minister has been announced. I will preface my comments on this issue by saying that we think that representations are not always best made through a megaphone in public, but I assure the House that our views on the electoral process and the challenges facing Bangladesh and its political leaders are well known by both the Government and the Opposition parties and that we continue, at all appropriate levels, to maintain contact. Our commitment to that intensive dialogue will continue. We also keep in close touch with our partners in the United States, Brussels and national capitals around the world.
	On the question of international observers, obviously it is for Bangladesh to decide to invite international observers, who have an important role to play in assessing the inclusiveness and fairness of elections. It is also essential, however, that the political conditions exist for observers to go about their work in safety and with full access to all stages of the electoral process. That was not possible this time in Bangladesh, but I hope very much that it will be the next time it holds elections.
	My hon. Friends the Members for St Albans and for Bedford and the hon. Member for Islington North asked about disappearances and other reported and alleged human rights abuses. At Bangladesh’s universal periodic review at the United Nations Human Rights Council in April 2013, the United Kingdom called for a thorough and impartial investigation into enforced disappearances. We also argued that if credible evidence emerged, there should be prosecutions for all alleged abuses of human rights. That continues to be our position. We believe that any allegation of an abuse of human rights should be properly and impartially investigated, and that where there is credible and verifiable evidence against people, they should be held to account, through due judicial process, for those actions.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Minister for making that point. Does he know when the universal periodic review response is due from Bangladesh and whether the Bangladesh Government have agreed to co-operate with the UPR based on the representations made by the UK and other Governments?

David Lidington: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman now, but I will write to him on those details.
	My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans was absolutely right to warn that political instability and feuding in Bangladesh will harm the country’s prospects of attracting the investment that its people so desperately need. I welcome her emphasis on the garment sector and the role of women in the economy. I will certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for International Development her wish for a formal response to the all-party group report. The Government regard the garment sector as vital for poverty reduction and for the economic empowerment of women. Through our aid programme, we provide just under £5 million to the International Labour Organisation to enhance worker safety in the ready-made garment sector in Bangladesh. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends at DFID will keep under review other opportunities for providing similar help through the appropriate agencies.
	Several questions were asked about the United Kingdom’s aid programme and the political situation in Bangladesh. Of course, aid is not the only way in which this country helps Bangladesh and tries to make it possible for its people to prosper. We have a flourishing and growing commercial relationship. The United Kingdom is one of the largest investors in Bangladesh, with about £2 billion provided in investment projects to date, and with 100 UK firms operating successfully right across Bangladesh. Our bilateral trade in goods doubled between 2006 and 2011, and we are now the third largest destination for exports from Bangladesh, with garments and seafood accounting for the bulk of total sales.
	The aid relationship is, however, very important as well. The United Kingdom is the largest donor of bilateral grant aid to Bangladesh. It will amount to £275 million in the 2013-14 financial year. The aid programme is focused above all on the relief of the chronic and desperate poverty of far too many millions of people in Bangladesh, as well as on programmes to improve the quality of drinking water and sanitation, and to help Bangladesh to adapt to the risks posed by climate change. I say to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow that we estimate that about 15 million people in Bangladesh have been helped directly by UK aid funding for extending flood early warning systems.
	[Official Report, 22 January 2014, Vol. 574, c. 1-2MC.]Most United Kingdom aid is channelled through non-governmental organisations and none is paid directly to the Bangladesh Government. It is true that about a third of our total aid programme ultimately goes to the Bangladesh Government’s health and education systems because, as we all know, help with primary health care and education are key to promoting the economic development and sustainable growth of a developing country. However, that one-third share is channelled via reputable NGOs, such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, and money is paid out by our Government only once we have been given clear, accountable evidence that a project or programme in the education or health sector has been delivered. That aspect of our aid is delivered on a reimbursement basis.
	Roughly 12.5% of United Kingdom aid goes to matters related to governance, although I again stress that it does not go directly to the Bangladesh Government or any individual political party. That element of our aid programme includes measures to enhance the taxpayer base in Bangladesh, which indirectly contributes to anti-corruption work in that country. The number of
	registered taxpayers has risen by 480,000, in part as a result of that element of the UK aid programme, and improving the technical side of the electoral system—the quality of the electoral register—is another aspect of it.
	As some Members have urged, the Government, through the Department for International Development, will always keep their aid programme under review. I am sure that my colleagues in DFID have heard the questions posed about whether we need to review with particular rigour some parts of the Government’s spending in Bangladesh. I know that the commitment to a review is real, but I emphasise that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, who said that we must not let our dissatisfaction with the political situation in Bangladesh lead us to decide to restrict aid in ways that penalise some of the poorest people on the planet, who are not responsible for decisions taken by Bangladesh’s party political leaders.
	Bangladesh is an important partner of the United Kingdom, not least through the Commonwealth and our links to the British Bangladeshi community that contributes so much to our society. We continue to support the people of Bangladesh in their aspirations for a more stable, prosperous and democratic future. We urge all political leaders and parties in Bangladesh to shoulder their responsibilities to bring that about, and to commit themselves to a peaceful political process through constructive dialogue.

Anne Main: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate at such short notice. The slot became available because of the unfortunate circumstances of the death of Mr Paul Goggins. Although they are participating at short notice, many hon. Members and colleagues from the all-party group have spoken with great knowledge and depth. If the debate shows the world outside this Chamber anything, it is the House of Commons at its best. We are completely at one in our disappointment at Bangladesh’s situation and in our hope that some solution and way forward can be found even at this late stage.
	The reason why the interim period lasted for two years, despite that being far longer than is allowed for under the constitution, was that the 2006 to 2008 interim Government had to fix so many problems that had been left unfixed. For example, a credible voter list was needed, because millions had been left disfranchised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, when such a voter list was brought in, hopes were high that the country would be led by a party with a true democratic mandate, because so many people were enfranchised who had previously been left off a voter list that could in no way be considered free of corruption.
	Given the hopes expressed at the 2008 election, which the Awami League won with a landslide vote and a true democratic mandate, it is a shame that in such a short time Bangladesh should find itself in its current position. So many colleagues who care so much about the country and who have spoken so knowledgeably—indeed, some have large Bangladeshi diasporas in their constituencies—are united across the House and across parties in saying that the country must do better.
	I concur with the shadow Minister that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) will probably have curry for life. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) did not break into the mother tongue of Bangladesh that he seems to speak so well, albeit with something of an accent. His wife runs the Sreepur street project, to which he referred, admirably. She has presented the good work that that charity does to the APPG.
	To the people who ask what APPGs do, I say that this debate shows what they do at their best. They take an interest in a niche subject and unite colleagues in the House across party lines. I am truly grateful that this debate has been participated in so fully. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) could not take the limelight, as he was going to do, because of pressing engagements that meant he could not stay until the end. He would have done a brilliant job of opening and closing the debate, but I have had to fulfil that role. I am sorry if I have coughed throughout, but I have watched all of it.
	I honestly hope that those who are watching this debate—some of whom are very close to us—have taken on board our earnest hope that they will go back and say, “Put your differences aside.” The two-lady solution that was being talked about in 2006 would have been a disaster because there can be no way to run a country through violence. We want Bangladesh’s political leaders to keep their arguments and debates within their Chamber, and to allow their electorate to come forward freely with a strong voice and say who they would like to represent them. The people should then be able to hold them to account. That is what this House does. We hold the Government of the day to account. Every Government who are in power must feel that they have to deal with the issues and that they cannot just keep looking back and blaming the Opposition, saying, “It all happened then.” [Interruption.] That goes right the way back to 1971. Let us end on that note of consensus—don’t spoil it. We can look back at the history, but if people focus only on that and lose sight of the bigger picture, to which we have all alluded, it will be a tragedy for Bangladesh.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the current situation in Bangladesh.

Nuisance Calls

[Relevant document: Fourth Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Nuisance Calls, HC 636.]

Michael Crockart: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered nuisance calls.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for this important debate. Many Members who would like to have been here for this debate are unable to be with us for various reasons, including constituency commitments, debates in Westminster Hall and, sadly, the funeral of our friend, Paul Goggins. Our thoughts are with the friends and family of that departed Member.
	I would like to use this opportunity to say that my thoughts are with the family of a three-year-old in my constituency who went missing from his home overnight last night. We all fervently hope for Mikaeel Kular’s safe return as soon as is possible.
	It has been a long and hard road to get to this point. When I started my campaign 18 months ago, I did not for the life of me think that it would grow to the size that it now is. I must thank some people and institutions for their help. I thank The Sunday Post and Which? for their support and their campaigns. They have both launched petitions over the past 18 months. There are now more than 130,000 signatures from members of the public urging action on this issue.
	In response to that, I set up the all-party parliamentary group on nuisance calls in July last year to look into the unsolicited marketing industry and the issue of nuisance calls in particular. It is made up of Members of all parties and I especially thank the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) for his support in co-chairing and running the group. Unfortunately, he cannot be present today because of a constituency commitment. The all-party parliamentary group has completed an inquiry and a report, which I will rely on for many of my remarks.
	I will set the scene by defining some of the concepts that we will discuss, because this is a complex area. Nuisance means different things to different people. The term “nuisance call” is used to capture a wide range of types of calls from silent calls to live marketing calls and from harassment to financial scams. By definition, nuisance calls are a problem for consumers. They interrupt family meal times or are received wearily after a hard day’s work. They often demand that elderly or vulnerable people answer the phone when it is an effort to do so. For some people they are a mere irritation, but for others they cause significant harm or distress, and they can even make people feel intimidated when answering their phone. Not all nuisance calls are illegal. Consumers sometimes term legitimate contact a nuisance, for example if a call comes at an awkward time of the day. Nuisance is often in the eye of the beholder.
	For the purposes of this debate, we will focus on marketing calls, whether silent or live and whether over a fixed line or a mobile, that are made without the consumer’s consent. We will also consider the problem of nuisance spam texts, although the consent mechanism differs. Marketing calls operate on an opt-out basis. Until a person says explicitly that they do not wish to
	receive marketing calls, companies that are engaged in direct marketing are able legally to contact them by telephone. In contrast, marketing texts operate on an opt-in basis. They can be sent legally only if a consumer states that they are happy to receive them.
	The definitions of terms such as live marketing calls and marketing text messages follow those that are used by the main regulators, which are Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office. The definitions focus on the type of call and do not cover situations in which, although the individual call may be legal, the pattern, frequency or time of the call should classify it as a nuisance.

Guy Opperman: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman wholeheartedly on securing this debate and on the campaign that has been running. Does he accept that the fundamental problem that our constituents complain to us about is that there are frequently multiple calls and that calls are often made at night time? I have had constituents complaining of more than 15 calls in a day and dozens of constituents have complained that people call them at 1, 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning, which is particularly alarming to members of the public.

Michael Crockart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who is unable to be here, outlined a very worrying set of circumstances to me, which may well have affected the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. In the last week, a large number of automated calls have been made at those sorts of times in the morning, starting with the phrase, “The Government want you to know that—”. The time at which the calls are made indicate that it will almost inevitably be bad news. Those calls can be very worrying and cause immense distress.
	Unfortunately, the regulatory framework for nuisance calls is complex. That is partly because it has emerged through historical accident, rather than by design. Ofcom regulates silent and abandoned calls. The regulations state that when using automatic dialler equipment, which must have been used in the cases that I have just outlined, no more than 3% of answered call attempts should be abandoned because no live agent is available at the call centre. That means that if 1 million calls are made, 30,000 nuisance calls can be made legally.
	The Information Commissioner’s Office is responsible for enforcing data protection regulations, including the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, which I will call PECR from now on. Under PECR, the Information Commissioner’s Office is responsible for enforcement for live calls, which includes recorded calls and spam texts.
	Alongside the two main regulators, a number of other organisations, with or without regulatory powers, have an interest. Claims management companies, which are responsible for the vast share of calls, are regulated by the claims management regulator. The Financial Conduct Authority will shortly regulate debt management and payday lending companies. The National Fraud Authority and the police have a role to play when nuisance calls pertain to fraud, scams or other forms of illegal activity. PhonepayPlus regulates premium rate phone numbers and services in the UK. That is by no means a full list.

Mark Lazarowicz: I endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the missing three-year-old boy from his constituency, on the border of mine in Edinburgh. Like him, I hope that he is soon found safe and brought back to his home.
	Is not one problem nuisance calls that purport to come from outside the UK, which by definition are particularly difficult to deal with? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must at least try to deal with that aspect of the problem, which people are unsurprisingly concerned about?

Michael Crockart: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and there are two issues raised. Of course, the vast majority of calls coming from outside the UK are made on behalf of companies operating within the UK, so they should be covered by the regulators. The difficulty is that there are all sorts of problems with identifying where those calls have come from and getting the calling line identity to ensure that they can be traced. I hope that the Minister will have something to say later about how he is looking to deal with the various difficulties.
	The complexity of the regulation leads to a lack of focus and, therefore, to a lack of action. I welcome the Minister’s involvement, however, which has helped to deal with the first. We will see shortly whether it is helping to deal with the second, as well.
	In the all-party group’s inquiry, we made a number of attempts to come to a final assessment of the scale of the problem, but the vast array of inconsistent data makes that difficult. The regulators receive about 6,000 complaints a month about nuisance calls. Ofcom reports that it receives about 3,000 relating to silent calls, and since setting up its online reporting tool in March 2012, the Information Commissioner’s Office has received about 240,000 complaints about unsolicited calls and texts. There is no evidence that the problem is decreasing. The ICO, Ofcom and the Telephone Preference Service all report an overall growth in the number of complaints over the past three years, but complaints data alone fail to tell us the full story. As part of its “Calling Time” campaign, Which? set up a web portal to direct consumer complaints to the relevant regulator.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman may recall that when BT gave evidence to the all-party group, it said that its complaints and nuisance calls line received some 65,000 calls a month—from memory, I think that was the figure. If so many calls are coming in but so few are going to the regulator, that suggests that there is a serious problem and that there is no confidence that the regulator will do much about them.

Michael Crockart: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, although I am not sure whether it is just a lack of confidence. Part of it may well be a lack of knowledge and a lack of willingness to commit time to go through the process of making a complaint. However, I was about to make the point that he raises.
	Data from the portal that Which? set up showed that only about half the people who used it went on to make a full complaint to the regulators. As the hon. Gentleman says, the number of nuisance calls received far exceeds the number of official complaints. BT estimates that its nuisance call bureau receives about 50,000 calls a month—
	that is the figure I have, which is bad enough. There are also nuisance texts, and in the evidence that the all-party group received, the technology company Pinesoft estimated that about 8.7 million are sent every day.
	Ofcom’s omnibus survey is generally considered to produce the most accurate estimate of the number of nuisance calls that people receive, because it involves people making a diary of the calls that they receive for a certain period. It has resulted in an estimate that consumers who experience unwanted calls receive an average of about two a week, with four out of five participants receiving at least one nuisance call during the four-week research period. About a quarter of people recalled receiving more than 10 calls in a four-week period. However one calculates it, the annual number of unwanted calls is almost certainly more than 1 billion.
	Another recent piece of research was commissioned by StepChange, a debt charity, and conducted by YouGov. It found that more than 3.2 million British adults who had received an unsolicited marketing call or text had been left afraid to answer the phone as a result of those communications.

Guy Opperman: On that point about the fear factor, the result is that the telephone is taken out of the use of people who would otherwise regard it as a normal service in their home. It is manifestly clear on any interpretation that such texts and calls are increasing, and that the Government need to do more to give the regulator and others teeth, so that we can stop them.

Michael Crockart: Absolutely. That is a good point, and that fear is concentrated among certain groups, such as the elderly, who are at home during the day more, and those who, as StepChange found, are hounded by companies encouraging them to take out payday loans and so on. Just over 26.3 million British adults have been offered high-interest credit such as payday loans via unsolicited marketing calls or messages, and 83% of British adults feel that consumers need greater protection from them.
	As I said, people who get a high number of nuisance calls tend to be elderly, and a recent trial of call-blocking technology by trading standards in Angus, in Scotland, found that about 40% of phone calls received by elderly and vulnerable residents were nuisance calls. It also found that older people were the victims of 40% of all nuisance calls. As I said, that is partly because of the timing of nuisance calls, with 78% being made between 8 am and 6 pm, when most people are at work. The trial found that without call-blocking technology, participants were extremely concerned about scams, the risk of a fall when answering the phone, feeling helpless to stop calls and feeling intimidated by callers. Once call-blocking technology was installed, all those concerns were reduced considerably.
	I decided to carry out a trial in my constituency by installing call-blocking technology in the homes of two constituents who were being particularly bothered by nuisance calls. The results were quite shocking and bore out what has been found elsewhere. Mrs Moffat is a constituent who is deaf and has to use a textphone, and her husband suffers from early dementia. Since 27 August, 65% of her incoming calls have been nuisance calls. Since 11 September another constituent, Mrs Manchester, has received 212 calls, a third of which have been
	nuisance calls. Interestingly, the figure is down from 43% two months ago, which seems to indicate that the use of call-barring technology alone is reducing their instance.
	The argument is strengthened by examining StepChange’s research. A particular problem is nuisance calls targeted at indebted people, which are causing tangible stress and anxiety. Some 65% of respondents to a website poll said that they were afraid to answer the phone as a result of nuisance calls or texts. That stress and anxiety risks exacerbating existing mental health difficulties. According to the World Health Organisation, the more debt people hold, the more likely they are to suffer from mental health problems. That further serves to illustrate why it is essential to ensure better protection for financially vulnerable consumers from the potential harm of nuisance calls or messages. Yet there is clear evidence that those people are being targeted.
	More than 26.3 million British adults say that they have been offered high-interest credit via unsolicited marketing calls. For those who do not need it, that is annoying, but it is easy enough just to delete messages. However, financial difficulties can lead to poor economic choices, and 6% of respondents said that as a result of a nuisance call or message, they had taken out a financial service or product that actually worsened their financial position. The lure of a no-questions-asked loan is difficult to pass up when someone can justify to themselves that it is only for a week until they get back on their feet.
	The problem of protecting vulnerable consumers is the most pressing, since that is where consumer detriment is most significant. Whatever actions are taken to address the problem of nuisance calls in the longer term, that issue must be dealt with now using whatever available means.
	The difficulty of coming up with an agreed figure for nuisance calls is not merely academic, because it reveals two issues that go to the heart of the problem. First, it suggests a lack of coherence in information and data about nuisance calls. Data are being generated and collected, or discarded, over a large number of organisations and are not effectively shared or centrally stored. For example, the all-party group was surprised to learn in its inquiry that BT does not share with the regulator data generated by its nuisance calls services. Similarly, trueCall, a manufacturer of call-blocking technology, reported that it had not been able to interest the regulators in the data generated through the use of its products. In addition, the TPS does not share data with the Direct Marketing Commission, but both are arms of the Direct Marketing Association.
	The discrepancy between the number of initial reports received by consumer-facing organisations such as Which? and BT, and the final number of complaints received by the regulators, suggests that not all consumers who receive nuisance calls follow through the reporting structure. That could be for a number of reasons, but the most likely are that the complaints mechanisms are too onerous; the complainant lacks the necessary information to make a complaint, such as the name of the company or its telephone number; or, as has been said, people believe there is little point in making a complaint. The
	result is that we see only part of the picture at any one time, which makes it all the more important for us to act.
	On the economics of nuisance calls, I am not saying that we must ban all direct marketing. The direct marketing industry undoubtedly contributes financially to the UK economy. Call centres alone employ more than 1 million people in the UK. Direct marketing techniques are used by a huge number of companies from a wide range of sectors to generate business. At its best, direct marketing can be informative and useful to consumers, helping them to find the best deal and the most suitable product for their needs.
	On the other hand, nuisance calls cause such a high level of irritation that it is easy to forget that there is a market for them. They are made to generate sales. Their continued existence means that we can assume only that they are at times successful. The claims management industry is consistently responsible for the largest share of complaints, but nuisance calls originate from a wide cross-section of industries. In live calls, the top topics of communication are payment protection insurance reclaim, accident claims and energy. The top topics for automated calls are, similarly, debt management, PPI and energy. Other topics include research and surveys; so-called sugging, when the caller pretends to be from a legitimate market research organisation; Government grants, such as for loft insulation; and insurance and telecoms.
	The inquiry heard evidence that an outbound live marketing call can be made for as little as 20p—the cost drops to just 1p for automatic dialler equipment. The average PPI claim is for around £2,700, with claims management companies receiving, on average, around 25% of that. The economics of the industry are clear: a single win can cover the cost of 3,125 live calls or 62,500 automated calls. That helps to explain the market in lead generation. We do not know the underlying figures, but it seems reasonable to assume that a significant proportion of calls are made by lead-generation companies, which work to collect data and potential leads for other companies, which then make the final sales call.

Guy Opperman: The hon. Gentleman is dealing eloquently with the economics of the process. Does he accept the proposition that the likelihood of our constituents taking calls between 9 o’clock at night and 6 o’clock in the morning is very limited? Does he agree that the Government could regulate against night-time calls, which are a waste of money for those companies, even if they put the auto-dial on and leave the building?

Michael Crockart: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. I will go on to deal with the Information Commissioner’s Office guidance that covers exactly that problem.
	The inquiry heard evidence that the low cost of making those calls means that there is no economic driver to undertake any initial targeting or research. Calls are so cheap that it is economically effective simply to dial telephone numbers in sequence. In comparison, with direct mail marketing there is a cost for delivering and returning badly targeted mail.
	Having established the terrifying scale of the problem, it is clear that major reform is required, by Government and regulators, and by the telecoms and direct marketing
	industries. There is a need for major change, but there is also a danger of being paralysed by the necessary strategies, consultations, proposals and counter-proposals.
	The all-party parliamentary group report published in October contains 16 recommendations. Ministers have a copy of it, but I should like to make the case for four areas in which urgent action is both necessary and possible, the first of which is a basic one relating to consent to receive calls and TPS registration. There are around 25 million land-lines in the UK, of which 19 million, which is around three quarters, are registered with the TPS. There are 71 million mobile phones—more than the number of people in the UK—and many are similarly registered with the TPS. Each and every day, however, there are more than 2 million nuisance calls and texts.
	First-party consent should override TPS registration. Maintaining a direct relationship with customers is key to any company and is valued by many of those customers. Nothing in the report seeks to limit contact when it benefits both sides and is properly consented to. However, third-party consent is a grey area. It is commonly referred to as, “Carefully selected third parties or trusted partners,” which could just as easily mean, “Any company that is willing to pay for your details”. Sometimes, if people say, “I am TPS registered,” it is enough to end the calls. Even then, a breach of the regulations has happened. However, companies often argue that people have given permission at some point in the dim and distant past. In all conscience, who can ever say completely confidently that that cannot be true?
	I am sure the Minister will argue that the ICO guidance is in place, so action is not needed. If every company adhered to the excellent guidance, he would be right, but they do not.

Andrew Stunell: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if every company is well behaved, we would not need a regulatory system at all? The point of the regulator is to deal with those who are unscrupulous or careless.

Michael Crockart: I agree entirely, and I am glad my hon. Friend used the word “careless”, because carelessness and the ease of making calls without having to think too closely about the regulations cause much of the problem.
	The regulations are in place and the guidance is excellent. A document issued by the ICO tells companies what to do. It states:
	“Organisations can make live unsolicited marketing calls, but must not call any number registered with the TPS unless the subscriber (ie the person who gets the telephone bill) has specifically told them that they do not object to their calls.”
	“Specifically” is the word, and the guidance seems straightforward. Hon. Members might think that it makes it clear that companies should not make calls in those circumstances.
	The document also provides a checklist with an example of best practice, which states:
	“Make sure your privacy notice is clear, honest and will be understood by the people it is aimed at. Avoid confusing mixtures of ‘opt-ins’ and ‘opt-outs’. Do not pre-tick consent boxes.”
	Not only small, fly-by-night fraudulent companies ignore that guidance. I did a small survey yesterday of some well known companies. Unfortunately, as expected, the reality is very different. Companies ask us in a multitude
	of ways to give our consent to be contacted. TalkTalk has a pre-ticked box for giving first-party consent, but there is an unticked box, which is better, for giving third-party consent. Virgin Media is confusing because its question combines first and third-party consent in one box, which defaults automatically to opt-in. As hon. Members would expect, John Lewis is much better. It excellently uses plain language on all its boxes and there is a separate box for each type of contact—e-mail, mobile or land-line. Unfortunately, all the boxes are defaulted to opt-in.
	I went to BT’s site and looked at buying a phone. Unfortunately, BT had nothing relating to first-party consent—there was no box to opt out or to opt in. The third-party consent option was defaulted to blank, meaning it was not defaulted to opt-in. I wondered about that, so I followed an obscure-looking link to its privacy policy, which states:
	“Unless you tell us not to we assume we have your permission to tell you about BT products and services we think you might be interested in, we won’t send you marketing messages if you tell us not to.”
	The way that one has to tell them not to, however, is by opting out when one receives them
	“so you can opt out when we call you as part of a telemarketing campaign, you can opt out when we email you as part of a email marketing campaign, or you can write to a freepost address.”
	That is absolutely not in tune with the guidance issued by the ICO. With such a confusing range of options, it is no wonder that consumers do not know what to tick or what they have consented to.
	I will turn now to the level of proof expected by the ICO when presenting cases relating to nuisance texts. This should not take long, as the Government recently announced their willingness to lower the threshold, although they have not specified what the new level of detriment will be or when the change will be implemented. By reducing the level of detriment from “substantial damage or substantial distress” to “annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety”, it would align the threshold with that expected of Ofcom in silent call cases.
	The recent decision by an appeals court judge to overturn the fine that ICO issued to Tetrus late last year demonstrates exactly why this section is crucial. Tetrus had been engaged in sending unwanted text messages on an industrial scale, sending hundreds of thousands of texts every week from unregistered SIM cards that seek out potential claims for mis-selling of PPI or accidents. Tetrus did not make any effort to show that the recipients had given consent, or that they retained records of consent. It did not even register with ICO under the Data Protection Act 1998 as a controller of data.
	For 10 years, it has been unlawful to use text messages for direct marketing unless the recipient has either asked for, or consented to, the communication. While the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 gave ICO the power to impose monetary penalties of up to £500,000, there are certain preconditions. First, the contravention must be serious and it must also be
	“of a kind likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress.”
	The appeals judge unfortunately decided to overturn the £140,000 penalty, as there were problems with the
	words “likely” and “substantial distress”. The judge ruled that the effect of the text messages was likely to cause
	“widespread irritation but not widespread distress.”
	That is an extremely worrying judgment that effectively gives a green light to any spam texter to send thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of unsolicited texts, as long as they are careful not to use distressing wording. That seems to be the only point in the judgment on which there is a point of debate. If nothing else I say today is accepted, movement on this issue would be welcome.
	My next point is on industry action and on those industries involved in making calls. Many of the calls sent by Tetrus were attempting to generate leads for claims management companies. Those companies are now regulated by the claims management regulator. I mention that only to point out that it is a good example to follow. Claims management texts are on the wane and there is a reason for that. As a condition of the authorisation of a claims management company, they must:
	“comply with the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2013.”
	I have a copy here and I need only read 30 words from this excellent document, because they say:
	“Cold calling in person is prohibited. Any other cold calling, by telephone, email, fax or text, shall be in accordance with the direct marketing associations’ direct marketing code of practice.”
	Those 30 words will hopefully have effectively dealt with texts from CMCs, because if their registration depends on abiding by the rules, it is amazing how the mind can be focused. That is why, when the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills was writing a report into payday lenders, I managed to sneak a recommendation into it. It said:
	“We recommend that the FCA…discusses with the Information Commissioners Office…to establish the extent of bad practice”—
	in the area of direct marketing.
	“We…recommend that the FCA devises and issues a guidance note for payday lenders along similar lines to that established by the Claims Management Regulator in its Marketing and Advertising Guidance.”
	The problem here is that we should not have to do it piecemeal—bit by bit, for each sector of industry. We should be able to set that at ICO level, where we are dealing with the method of making those calls.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Just before the hon. Gentleman progresses, I should gently point out to him that he has spoken for over half an hour and, while the House appreciates the importance and intricacy of the points he is making, I know that he will bear in mind that several other Members would like to speak this afternoon. While I do not urge him to conclude his remarks immediately, he might be thinking about drawing to a conclusion in due course.

Michael Crockart: I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am heading towards to my last few points, I promise.
	The reason for slipping in that recommendation is that when we took evidence from payday lenders I had put them on the spot and asked them whether they
	engaged in this sort of direct marketing. They said, “Oh no, of course not. We wouldn’t do that.” I went back through my texts, therefore, and found nine directing me to a website offering payday loans: www.text4payday.com—don’t go there! On that website, I filled in details asking for a £200 loan over a month and pressed the button, “Get your cash”—not “Apply”, but “Get your cash”—expecting to be quoted a £50 charge, as advertised on the payday lender sites. Instead, I was directed to the QuickQuid website, which was one of the companies that gave evidence, where I was offered £400 over three months at a total cost of £754.
	I left it at that, because I did not think it was a particularly good deal—I did not even press any buttons on the second website—but I then received e-mails and texts as follows: Tuesday 5 November, 1.16 pm, an e-mail saying there was one more step to take; same day and time, an e-mail giving me pre-contract information; half an hour later, a text urging me to sign the contract; 15 minutes later, a call from America urging me to sign up, which I declined; 20 minutes later, another e-mail giving me pre-contract information; the next day, at 6.32 am, an e-mail saying, “Hurry, application expiring soon”; at 7.59 am, another e-mail with pre-contract information; at 12.9 pm, another e-mail with account log-in information. That was worrying enough, but I then thought, “Well, is this website just a front for QuickQuid?” so I went on again, only this time I made up details. I called myself Boris Peep and made a further application. I put in my constituency address and immediately started getting texts saying “Hi, Boris. Your application has been approved.” So a made-up person ended up being approved for a payday loan. It is very worrying and needs urgent action.
	The telecoms industry also needs to take action. It is time that some of them stopped looking on themselves almost as delivery companies—“As long as you pay the postage, you can send any old rubbish you like. In fact, the more the better, as we will charge you for each packet.” The industry needs to take responsibility for the nuisance calls it is delivering daily, and some have decided to do exactly that, which is welcome. In mobile circles, if someone receives a spam text, they can forward it using the short code 7726, and the date is aggregated and forwarded to the Information Commissioner’s Office. I want that model replicated for landlines. In our evidence session, we asked Warren Buckley from BT whether we could have it, and he said:
	“From our point of view first of all I would have to set up a whole new service”
	and
	“work out where I’m going to hold that data… I’m not suggesting we can’t do it, and I’m not suggesting that we won’t do it,”
	but
	“it’s extremely difficult for us to do.”
	I went on to BT’s website and found a helpful BT calling features user guide, which told me about its “choose to refuse” service, which lets people choose who gets through:
	“Choose to Refuse lets you put a stop to nuisance or unwanted calls by stopping them from getting through to you. You can block up to ten numbers.”
	To do this, customers dial 14258**, and the number is added to a database. That does not sound too onerous or difficult.

Andrew Stunell: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the telephone companies are receiving the revenue from 1 billion nuisance calls a year, there is little incentive for them to throttle that profitable supply of calls?

Michael Crockart: I believe the expression is: you might suggest that, but I could not possibly comment.

Guy Opperman: May I comment? [Laughter.]

Michael Crockart: I am trying to finish, Madam Deputy Speaker, I promise.

Guy Opperman: Is not the point that the customer is effectively being charged and required to take action that the company should be taking without such a charge?

Michael Crockart: That is an excellent point, and one I will come to very shortly, as my final point, I promise.
	Returning to Warren Buckley’s comments, I presumed it was difficult because other companies did different things, making it harder to ensure consistency, so I looked at what TalkTalk did. It has a product called “last caller barring”. To use it, the customer dials 1425, and confirms by dialling **, after the number they want to block has called. It sounded remarkably similar to BT, so I went to Sky where its calls feature summary says that Sky has last caller barring, but it costs £3.55 a month. To bar a number following a call, one has to dial—gosh!—14258 followed by **. Exactly what I want is already here; it is just that the telecoms companies are doing it independently and charging for it. It should not be that difficult to take this issue forward. I say to Ministers that some in the industry will say that doing this is too difficult, too technical and too costly, but I hope they that will not be distracted or dissuaded. The companies are doing this already, but charging for it. They should not be allowed to get away with it.
	Finally, let me deal with helping our most vulnerable consumers. Right now in the UK, 100,000 people are being targeted over and over again by fraudsters. Their names and numbers appear on a “suckers list”, which is sold at premium rates among the criminal community. If criminals were repeatedly targeting these people by breaking into their homes, there would rightly be an outcry, and action would surely follow. Because they are being targeted by phone, however, we seem content to stand by and make excuses—excuses such as “All moneys collected from fines must be returned to the Treasury Consolidated Fund”—that means £2.36 million since 2010—or “We do not have the authority to establish a fund or a direct industry to do this”, or “Spending is severely restricted across Departments”.
	As I mentioned, pilot schemes on trading standards in Angus, East Dunbartonshire and East Renfrewshire council areas saw call-blocking technology installed on vulnerable consumers’ domestic phone lines. The results of the trial show that up to 98% of nuisance calls were blocked, giving those people significantly better control over their lives and their safety. In its report, “Mind the Gap”, Age Scotland has called for this scheme to be rolled out nationwide, and I agree. We are not talking about a huge number of people or a huge sum of money, so I issue a challenge today— and not just to Government, but to local authorities, telecoms providers
	and manufacturers of call-blocking technology. Surely together, we can find the resources to protect these most vulnerable people in our society. I can always press delete or hang up for another few months until regulations are tightened or behaviour is improved, but unless we act, someone’s mother or grandfather will lose their life savings tomorrow.

Michael Weir: I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) on bringing the matter forward so comprehensively, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for arranging the debate.
	I have some sympathy for Ministers—I do not often say that—because this issue is undoubtedly a complex one that covers many areas and for which there is no simple solution. As has been said, the scale of the problem is huge and the data appear to be contradictory. The regulators told the all-party group that they receive 6,000 complaints a month, yet BT told us that it receives—the hon. Gentleman corrected the figure I cited in an intervention—about 50,000 calls a month to its nuisance calls bureau, so clearly there is a disconnect. The reason why people are calling BT but not the regulators might be that many still identify BT as the national phone operator, or it might be that the regulators have failed to get the message across that they are responsible for dealing with the problem. The situation is further complicated by the fact that there are two regulators for different aspects of the issue, although their websites direct to each other’s as required. Part of the problem is that this situation has gone on for so long that people have simply got fed up and no longer trust the regulator to deal with it. That is serious, because we need the regulators to work with the Government and get things done.
	Politicians should be slightly careful when talking about this matter because it is not unknown for political parties to use telephone canvassing. What we may see as democracy others might view as nuisance calls. Indeed, I received a telephone call during the 2010 election on behalf of a Conservative candidate asking me whether I would prefer the current Prime Minister or the previous Prime Minister to be in charge of the UK. I leave it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to imagine my response, but suffice it to say there was no box to tick for “a plague on both your houses”. That illustrates that those calling may have done little or no research into who their victims are.
	I have been approached by many constituents who have been on the receiving end of nuisance calls. They are often keen to describe the adverse effect that those calls have had on them. All of us are victims. Like many, I have been registered with the Telephone Preference Service for years, but I still receive many nuisance calls, which are clearly targeted at specific times. In my house, we usually receive them in the early evening. Often the person who has made the call will start by uttering the immortal words, “We are not trying to sell you anything,” to which the appropriate response is to say, “Aye, right,” before putting down the receiver. Sometimes, however, we receive so many calls in quick succession that we do not answer the phone and leave the answering machine to pick up the calls.
	I got so fed up that I invested in one of BT’s fancy phones that allow people to screen out such calls, but they are only a partial solution, because they can screen out only certain types of call or specific numbers. For example, it is possible to block all international calls or calls with no caller identification, but that obviously presents difficulties, as many organisations—including Parliament—withhold numbers automatically, and many of my constituents have friends or family members overseas and therefore cannot use the international facility. The only other option is to block individual telephone numbers, but the number that can be entered is very limited, so given the volume of calls that can be received, that will not deal with the problem. It is also difficult to find out what callers’ numbers are without caller line identification, and many of the numbers appear to be bogus in any event. Increasingly often, the CLI number turns out to be bogus, especially if voice over internet protocol is used to generate a false number.
	Of particular concern is the number of elderly people who receive such calls. Many of those who contact me feel that they are being specifically targeted. That might well be true, although it is also possible that they receive more calls because they are in during the day. A recent trial of call-blocking technology by my local authority, Angus council, found that 40% of calls received by the elderly were nuisance calls. There is a serious problem that many elderly people who receive such calls are persuaded to sign up for specific services or contracts. In some cases, elderly people have signed up to numerous contracts to insure the same washing machine, for instance, and found themselves in a very difficult position.
	Elderly people are especially upset by silent or abandoned calls—when they answer the telephone and no one is there. Unlike marketing calls, which are the responsibility of the Information Commissioner, those kinds of calls are the responsibility of Ofcom. Many elderly people feel threatened and fearful when they receive such calls because they do not understand that they are simply a marketing device. Regulations under the Communications Act 2003 were intended to limit the number of calls that are abandoned because no live agent is available to answer them. They set out that a recorded message must be delivered when that happens, but my experience of receiving such calls is that the line often simply goes dead, with no recorded message, which is a clear breach of regulations. Given that most nuisance calls are made during the day, elderly people are more likely to receive silent calls. The 3% limit for which the regulations provide still allows a huge number of calls to be received by the elderly so that needs to be tackled.
	Elderly people may experience more specific problems. One of my elderly constituents who had difficulty with her hearing received a call that she thought was her energy company offering the renewal of a contract involving her gas boiler. She was persuaded to provide her bank details, and it was only later, when she thought about it, that the call seemed a bit strange to her. A check with her energy company confirmed that it had not made the call—indeed, it said that it never made such calls—and my constituent had to go to the trouble of rearranging her bank account to ensure that she was not a victim of a scam. Luckily, no money left the account on that occasion, but many people may be taken in by such calls.
	I used to receive regular scam calls—emanating, I think, from overseas—in which an agitated individual claimed that he was from Microsoft. He said that my computer was sending a message that it was under attack from a virus and urged me to enter codes to stop it. I would not claim to be especially computer literate, but I am not that daft, so the caller was given short shrift, but again it was impossible to get details of who was actually phoning. That sort of scam might well take in people who are not confident with computers but use them for things such as internet shopping.
	The fact that such a call originated from overseas illustrates one of the huge difficulties with this issue. The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) talked about calls coming in during the early hours of the morning, and I wonder if the real reason is that an automated caller from overseas has not correctly accounted for the time difference, because no one in their right mind would try to sell something at 1 am. Whatever Ofcom and the Government might do in this area, it is unlikely to have much impact unless they can get co-operation and action from other Governments and regulators.
	When the all-party group asked BT whether it could block overseas nuisance calls, it said that the vast majority of such calls do not carry caller line identification, so it would not know what to block. It apparently can block all calls without CLI, but it made the point that many overseas networks do not support CLI, meaning that it would be blocking all calls from certain parts of the world, which would clearly be impractical.
	As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West pointed out, many UK companies operate overseas call centres that phone into the UK, which adds another dimension to the problem of blocking overseas calls. These companies must take some responsibility for the overseas call centres that they operate—or, more likely, to which they give business, as in some jurisdictions there are huge call centres that work for many companies. Companies must have some responsibility to look at who they are employing and to ensure that they are complying with regulations.
	Such a huge international dimension can be dealt with only through international agreement and action, so I will be interested to hear from the Minister what progress is being made to tackle the problem, and especially about what discussions have been undertaken with the Governments and regulators in overseas countries such as India, which host many of these call centres.
	The all-party group also made it abundantly clear to BT that we thought that it was inappropriate, to put it mildly, that it was in the process of introducing a charge for its caller line identification service, which had previously been free to many users. Of course it is true that some companies, such as TalkTalk, do not charge, so consumers may wish to consider that when they are arranging a service. However, it is also the case that BT, through Openreach, operates far and away the largest part of the network, and it probably still has the majority of customers. What discussions has the Minister had with BT about that issue and what pressure he can put on it to reconsider its decision? As has been said, telephone companies can generate a great deal of revenue from this practice, so some responsibility on their part would not go amiss.
	I think that many of us were quite surprised about some of the evidence about the TPS. Clearly many people, including some members of the all-party group, did not fully understand the terms of the system, especially the fact that if someone ticks a box saying that they will be happy to receive information from a company—or, indeed, that that company may pass information on to other companies—that is treated as overriding the terms of the TPS and can, it seems, open a huge new range of companies that can legitimately telephone people. Clearly some companies were using that loophole which, it seems to me, brings the whole of the TPS into disrepute.
	Indeed, it appears that many companies are acting as phishing agents by operating specifically for the purpose of obtaining information that can be sold on to other companies—so-called lead generation. That is an abuse of the regulations. We recommend action to clean up that part of the industry through an accreditation scheme, but I feel that we need to look at the situation much more closely and, in particular, at how information about what will be done with the details gathered is given to those targeted by such companies. Again, people who take on services should be given a clear statement. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West pointed out the difficulties about wording, but a statement saying simply, “If you tick this box, your data will be passed on and you may receive marketing calls,” would make it clear to people what they were signing up to or not opting out of, which would be a great step forward. Much of the problem could be dealt with by giving people such clear statements.
	I also believe that any consent should be given for only a limited period. It has been pointed out that when people give consent, it seems to last for ever. Why should it not have to be renewed at regular intervals? Someone might not remember ticking—or failing to tick—a box when buying something on the internet in the distant past. They might not realise that they had given their consent, and they will continue to receive calls without realising why. We should reverse the system to ensure that that consent had to be actively renewed. I wonder how many people would do that, having received such calls for a year.
	I know that the Minister has been working on a strategy to deal with the problem, and I would be interested to know what action the Government are considering. I said at the outset that I had some sympathy with him. I would not like to be the one who had to come up a system that we could all work with and that satisfied everyone in the Chamber and in the industry. However, this issue of huge concern to our constituents needs to be tackled. Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh West, I appreciate that an economic argument is involved. Some of my constituents work in call centres. We have to strike a balance but, at the moment, the balance seems to go against the people receiving the calls, rather than those who are making them, and that needs to be addressed.

John Whittingdale: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) on securing the debate. This matter is clearly the cause of great annoyance and anger, and it results in complaints from a large number of people. I suspect that Members of Parliament are no different from any other member
	of the public in this regard. I started getting calls some time ago asking me whether I wanted to make a claim for having been mis-sold payment protection insurance. I found that a little puzzling as I had never had PPI, but I then discovered that the calls were made indiscriminately and bore no relation to whether the recipients had actually bought the product. That is probably the most common kind of nuisance call, although it is not exceptional.
	I also want to congratulate Which?It has been very effective in raising awareness of this issue and has mounted a good campaign. I went on to Radio 5 Live to debate the issue with some of the main regulators, and the extent of the problem and the strength of feeling about it became apparent from the calls to the programme. It was then that I suggested the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport might investigate it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) also founded the all-party parliamentary group on nuisance calls, which has held its inquiry in parallel with ours. All those investigations have contributed to the recommendations that we will be debating.
	It is important to point out that there are perfectly legitimate reasons why, in principle, there should be cold calling. Some people have said that we should just ban it, but, early in our inquiry, the National Autistic Society pleaded with us not to do that, saying that cold calling was one of its most effective fundraising methods. There are legitimate reasons for cold calling, including fundraising and using it for political purposes. We had an interesting debate in the Select Committee when the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who cannot be here today, told us that about once a week he rang up a number of his constituents at random to ask them their views and to discuss whatever was going on at the time. We debated whether that came under the definition of nuisance calling, and we decided that it did not, because it was part of the job of a Member of Parliament to keep in touch with his constituents. There are reasons why people should make unsolicited calls, and I certainly would not want to ban them.
	One also has to assume that it is of some benefit to some people that they receive calls to ask whether they have been mis-sold payment protection insurance. One has to assume that these companies would not be making these calls unless some people said, “I am so glad you rang. Yes, I was mis-sold PPI and I would like you to help me.” If these companies had got no custom and simply annoyed every person they called, the exercise would seem fairly pointless. One therefore has to assume that some people will welcome these calls, but that does not justify the scattergun approach whereby these companies appear to be calling millions of people across the population and identifying perhaps one in 1,000 who welcome the call.
	My Committee was presented with compelling evidence—the hon. Member for Edinburgh West referred to some of it—about the scale of the problem: 85% of the population had received a cold call in the previous month, with the average number of calls being about seven a month. That is an enormous amount, and it is not surprising that the number of complaints about this issue has increased dramatically in the past few years. Some 62% of the unsolicited calls relate to PPI, so that specific driver has led to a large number of the complaints.
	I do not want to repeat the hon. Gentleman’s comprehensive speech, as he went through the various component parts of the problem and possible solutions in detail. The Committee concluded that there was no single magic bullet to deal with the problem; it could be broken down into a number of different parts and in each case there was an argument for strengthening the regulation and increasing the protection available to consumers. I will briefly go through the four relevant areas, which have been covered by him and by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir).
	Like the hon. Member for Angus, I understand why people who have gone to the trouble of registering with the telephone preference service, having been told that by doing so they will be sending a message that they do wish to receive calls, are deeply irritated when they go on receiving them. We were concerned to be told that even though somebody may register with the TPS, that expression of their wish can somehow be deemed to have been overruled because they happen to have ticked a box at another time, often when they are buying a completely different product and are asked whether or not they wish to receive marketing calls relating to products from that producer or, indeed, from third parties. I was interested to hear the results of the research that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West had done on various companies’ practices as to whether the default is to say that people want these things. That is part of the problem: people register with the TPS, think that they have made sure that they will not get any of these calls and then tick a box, perhaps a few days or weeks later, which results in the expression of their wish expressed through the TPS being overruled and in their starting to get these calls again.
	One thing we talked to the Information Commissioner’s Office about was the extent to which companies should be able to claim that a TPS preference had been overruled by a subsequent action. The ICO has already begun to take on cases relating to that area, arguing that the consumer’s wish has been improperly overlooked. There may be scope to do more, particularly through the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, which I am sure the Minister will mention. The Committee also looked at whether there should be an expiry time: where someone gives consent to say they are happy to receive these calls, is that for time immemorial or should a renewal be required after six months?
	The Committee thought that the simplest solution, which I would like to see applied more widely, is that where a complaint is made against a company for making unsolicited calls, that company should be required to show the consent—it should show why it has called that individual. The company should be able to produce evidence to show that the individual had given consent to be called, particularly if they were registered under the TPS. That would be a simple requirement for the ICO to enforce to deal with some of this confusion over whether consent had or had not been given.
	The next component is the technological opportunity to obtain information about who is calling or to block people making calls. Ofcom published a useful table that goes through all the various services offered by different operators, such as caller display, incoming call
	blocking, anonymous call rejection and last-caller identification. It also shows whether the major providers offer those services and whether they do so free or charge for them. As this has become such a matter of public controversy and concern, it is healthy that operators are now beginning to compete, as part of their own marketing, by telling consumers the protections they offer.
	Yesterday, TalkTalk announced that it is to become the first and only internet service provider to make all landline privacy calling features completely free. There may be some argument over whether other operators offer free services or charge for them, but the fact that TalkTalk clearly thinks it is in its interests to market its services by offering such protections free to its customers can only be a good thing. We were concerned when BT, having told us about the services that it offers, particularly caller line identification, announced that it was changing the terms of its contract and that some people would be required to pay for that feature. That seemed a retrograde step. Although it is a matter for BT, we none the less expressed a very strong view that BT and all other telecoms providers should provide that kind of service to their customers free, and that there are clear market advantages in so doing.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh West also talked about the ease with which it is possible to report a nuisance telephone call to one’s telephone service provider. As it happens, I got one yesterday by text message and I used the 7726 service, which is easy to use on a mobile telephone. It was suggested to us, as it was to the hon. Gentleman, that that was much more difficult to do with landline calls, but, as he said, similar services are already available. For example, people can dial a number as soon as they have received a call to ensure that it is blocked next time. A reporting system of that kind should be relatively simple to operate. I accept that there may be greater and different challenges as we move towards more internet protocol telephony, but I have every confidence that the telecommunications companies in this country have the ability to overcome the challenges and develop protections should they choose to do so.
	The Committee also looked at the confusion that undoubtedly exists over where responsibility lies. There are different bodies, all of which have some role in accepting complaints and enforcing regulations. Although we did not agree with some people who said that there should be a single regulator, we did think that there should be a single point of entry for the consumer, so that the consumer does not have to sit down and think, “Should I ring up Ofcom or go to the Information Commissioner’s Office or the telephone preference service?” There should be a single front-facing telephone number for consumers, so that if they get a nuisance call, they can report it and then the people at the other end of the phone can work out which is the appropriate body to pursue the complaint.
	Finally, there is the question of enforcement. It may well be that more resources are needed to deal with the sheer volume of complaints. I agree with the hon. Member for Angus that the number of people who bother to make a complaint are a small fraction of those who suffer nuisance calls. For every person who complains, there are at least another 10 who feel that this is one of the irritations of life that they can do
	nothing about, and so do not bother to make a complaint. There is a case for Ofcom and the ICO to concentrate more on this area and to deploy more resources. To help them, it may also be necessary for us to lower the threshold for enforcement action. It has been suggested that rather than having a threshold that requires substantial damage and distress to be proven, all that should be required is the ability to show that it has caused annoyance, inconvenience and anxiety. Once that has been demonstrated, perhaps there should be higher penalties. When there are repeat offenders, repeat penalties should be imposed.
	A large number of different measures can be taken. No single one will sort the problem out, but taken together they should have a real impact. They were set out, very well, in the report by the all-party group. That suggestion was repeated by my Select Committee, which made a number of similar recommendations and one or two different ones. I hope that both reports will have helped to inform the Government and we look forward with keen anticipation to the Minister’s response, who will, I hope, set out what the Government intend to do.

Helen Goodman: Let me begin by apologising to the House, as I will have to leave at 4 o’clock to go to a parents’ evening. I cannot depute that to my husband because he is in hospital this week.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) on the excellent campaign he has run and on his work on the all-party group on nuisance calls, which I was pleased to support and contribute to, albeit in a minor capacity. He has done well to bring the matter to the attention of colleagues and it is also good that the Backbench Business Committee understood how many complaints Members on both sides of the House were receiving.
	The report by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is also extremely useful and I congratulate the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale). Outside this House, excellent work has been done by Which?,by David Hickson and by Ofcom. We debated the issue about a year ago in Westminster Hall, but this afternoon’s debate is better informed because of all the work that has been done.
	The Chair of the Select Committee is, of course, right that marketing calls are a necessary means of reaching consumers in the modern world, but the number of nuisance calls has exploded and seems to be up threefold since 2010. The calls range from irritating spam texts to distressing hard-sell calls for so-called services such as payday loans. As Mr Speaker might say, the public do not like it. Which? has secured 109,000 signatures in support of its campaign. Such calls are the No. 1 complaint received by Ofcom and, as hon. Members have said, are a particular issue for pensioners.
	Ofcom’s survey found that 80% of people were affected by the problem and more than half the people who sign up to the Telephone Preference Service continue to receive nuisance calls. That brings into question the effectiveness of the TPS. This is the sort of practical issue that any competent Government ought to be able to sort out. There are no big political issues here. It is a shame that the Government have not introduced the communications Bill that they have been talking about
	for more than three years, which could have dealt with the issue speedily, and I am pleased that the House is taking a lead this afternoon.
	One of the key underlying issues is the Government’s failure to take seriously the privacy of individual citizens and the protection of personal data. Let me quote the second paragraph of the Select Committee’s report, which expresses this extremely well. It states:
	“A significant underlying feature giving rise to nuisance calls is the unfair processing of personal data, something that is proscribed by the Data Protection Act 1998. Such processing includes obtaining a customer’s ‘consent’ to receive unsolicited marketing calls in ways that are at best opaque and at worst dishonest. It also includes trading personal data with companies lacking in scruples.”
	The problem runs far wider than nuisance phone calls. A key modern marketing tool is the collection, use and selling on of personal data. The Minister and I have debated that previously, because the Government are currently resisting European Union proposals to give people more effective control over their personal data. We still have not had a proper explanation. Are they adopting a Eurosceptic posture, or are they being lobbied heavily by big business? Neelie Kroes, the commissioner responsible, proposes that an individual must give their explicit consent for the use of personal data. It is significant that the Select Committee has now reported that the current law is being evaded and that new legislation is needed.
	The Secretary of State for Justice described the EU proposals as “mad”. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government have yet changed their mind and whether they will commit to new legislation on the matter. It was good to see the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who has just been appointed as a Justice Minister, here earlier. I have corresponded with his predecessors on the matter but, frankly, found that rather unsatisfactory. I hope that the officials in the Box will draw that correspondence to his attention and ask him to look at the matter again. I have high hopes that he will take a fresh look at it and place greater emphasis on the importance of protecting people’s personal data.
	We believe that new legislation is needed for explicit consent on a wider definition of personal data, and we are attracted to the idea, put forward by Which?, that there should be a time limit beyond which that consent expires. Three months might be a little on the short side, but I think that some sort of time limit would be a good idea. In the meantime, as the Select Committee has said, the Information Commissioner should use his existing powers more energetically.
	A key tool for people to make complaints and to protect themselves by not answering unwanted calls is calling line identification. The privacy package introduced by TalkTalk this week shows some of what is possible. Furthermore, both the Select Committee and the all-party group were right to criticise BT’s introduction of charges on 1571 calls and on caller display. At a time when the public are facing a cost of living crisis, a monthly charge of £1.75 for CLI is just another bill that people cannot afford. A bill of £21 a year is quite unjustified. During the all-party group’s evidence sessions, I asked what the cost of doing that across the board would be, and the industry was unable to tell us. I have since learnt that, depending on the technology, costs might range between
	zero and a one-off set-up cost of £1. For BT, therefore, it could not possibly cost more than 0.4% of its total annual profits of £2.5 billion.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) pointed out the full range of charges currently being made by all the companies, from £3 for this to £4 for that, and the numbers really add up. Will the Government now act to require the provision of calling line identification for free? We support the recommendation of the Select Committee and the all-party group to do that.
	Prevention is better than cure. Currently, the marketing sector is incentivised to exceed the 3% abandoned calls rule and the withholding of caller ID, even though that is part of the Direct Marketing Association’s code of practice. The Select Committee recommends putting that code into legislation. Will the Government now commit to doing that?
	In our previous debate, we discussed the need for one single complaints portal and a seamless operation, with data sharing between the ICO and Ofcom. When will the Minister bring forward legislation to facilitate such information-sharing between the two regulators? For the public, there must be a one-stop shop, and obviously this must not be solely an online service. It could be based on the co-regulatory model, funded by industry, as proposed by the all-party group and the Select Committee, not least because co-operation among the telephone companies would facilitate the tracing of more calls. It would also be sensible to lower the threshold for action from “substantial damage and distress” to
	“nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety”,
	as recommended by the Information Commissioner. It is also worth ensuring that fines are imposed on and paid by those exceeding the 3% abandoned calls limit—and, as the Select Committee has said, persistent offenders should be repeatedly hit.
	It is absolutely clear from this debate that nuisance calls are a very serious problem, especially for vulnerable and elderly people living at home alone. People are upset to be offered so-called services they do not and hope never to need, such as accident claims. They cause anxiety and distress. Simple solutions that do not add to bills and the cost of living crisis are needed. There seems to be an emerging consensus that the Government need to toughen up the legislation. DCMS Ministers have delayed in bringing forward a Bill, and I hope that the Minister will now commit to doing so. The time for research and reflection has been fulfilled; the time for action is now.

Richard Graham: Everybody has their favourite moment in terms of nuisance calls. Mine came one new year’s day in the late 1980s, when, as duty officer at the British high commission in Nairobi, I was woken at 3 am by a gentleman on a crackling line from the Indian ocean coast assuring me that he had a vital issue on which he needed my help—he wanted to know the result of the previous day’s Liverpool-Manchester United game, on which he had a small bet with a neighbour.
	This debate is about an issue that concerns Members in all parts of the House. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), in an otherwise interesting speech containing two ideas on which I share her views, had a brief go at trying to make it a party political debate, but it is not that. Nor is it only a Scottish matter, as was somewhat suggested by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) being swiftly followed by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir); it happens in all parts of the country. I want to highlight a couple of specific issues and then outline three or four recommendations, at least one of which has already been mentioned, for the Minister to mull over during this important debate.
	In November, one of my constituents, Mrs Jill Smith, wrote to me saying,
	“As you know we changed our number in the summer & have listed 9 such calls since the 16th Sep. on our new number. It never stops & is worse for the elderly at home all the time.”
	Sadly, as all hon. Members will know, the issues that Jill Smith raised with me after she changed her telephone number and registered with the Telephone Preference Service by no means represent an isolated case. If we quantify her problem around the country, we see that it has increased enormously. Statistics revealed by a written question to the Minister at the end of last year show that the number of calls where a recorded voice was heard increased from 1,640 in 2009 to 59,447 in 2013-14, and that the number of calls where a consumer spoke to a person increased from 1,735 to 40,231. The increases in both cases were very similar and there was an enormous, gigantic increase—a big leap forward—in the leap year of 2012-13.
	The situation has got worse and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West, whom I congratulate on securing the debate, has highlighted that regulators receive about 6,000 complaints a month. BT estimates that it receives about 50,000 calls a month to its nuisance calls bureau, including, no doubt, a large number of nuisance-like calls complaining about significant nuisance calls, so the number of nuisance calls and nuisance calls about nuisance calls becomes an increasingly circular frustration and irritation for all involved. We all agree that the worst affected are the elderly and the vulnerable. When it comes to dealing with nuisance calls, the Ofcom online guide will not necessarily help many of those worst affected, because they are not online.
	During the course of my research for this debate, I discovered—I am sure many other Members found this, too—that regulatory responsibilities are split between several agencies: Ofcom is responsible for taking action on abandoned and silent calls and for maintaining the TPS; the Information Commissioner’s Office takes action against companies that breach the TPS and follows up on consumer complaints; the claims management regulator has a responsibility, because the vast majority of calls are from claims management companies; the Office of Fair Trading regulates debt management companies; the National Fraud Authority and/or the police are responsible for taking action on scams and fraudulent activities; and PhoneplayPlus is responsible for premium rate numbers.
	One cannot help reaching the tentative conclusion that six different bodies—seven, if one includes the TPS—is too many. It is time for the Government to consider who is ultimately responsible for tackling the
	problem, which is a problem of practical politics rather than party politics. It relates to implementation and reducing the number of people who have some responsibility to a much smaller number with complete responsibility. That is my first point, having looked into the business of nuisance calls.
	My second point relates to the TPS, which, in concept, is a brilliant idea. There are 19.5 million numbers registered with the TPS and it is free. It has to be a good thing, but the question is whether it is still fit for purpose. The June edition of Which? said that the TPS is failing to cut off nuisance calls—we all know that that is true: Jill Smith’s letter makes that clear—which leaves 57% of those registered with the service unhappy. The head of the TPS, John Mitchison, told The Guardian last year:
	“It has eradicated lots of unwelcome calls…But the rules are complex, have loopholes, are split between agencies, tend to lag technology advances, and have been low priority.”
	Numbers registered with the TPS have to wait 28 days before a breach counts, which raises a practical question: could not the TPS be updated in real time? On market research, perhaps it does not behove a politician to suggest that it should be banned—legitimate opinion pollsters have a role to play—but there is an issue.
	An ICO review of the TPS was due this spring, but Ofcom has said that it will now be released this summer. The definition of summer sometimes stretches out during the course of a year, so the Minister will no doubt want to comment on when he expects the review to be delivered. It is important and I think it will lead to other opportunities, which I will touch on in a moment.
	Another point is about possible conflicts of interest. BT, which is keen to block persistent offenders, is concerned about being in breach of the universal service agreement. That area could perhaps be tightened up.
	I turn now to the whole business of trying to make recommendations about how things could be improved. First, we can all agree that there are too many nuisance calls and that the number ought to be reduced. We know that our constituents want them to be eliminated or reduced as much as possible.
	The hon. Member for Edinburgh West referred to the fact that some telephone companies charge for services that ban numbers from ringing us, particularly at home, which is disconcerting. I am encouraged, however, by the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) mentioned a change in policy by TalkTalk, which suggests that it may lead the way to other telephone companies recognising that such services should be provided to consumers free of charge.
	Secondly, on rationalisation of the regulators, there are too many bodies with different responsibilities, and there is a need to simplify and clarify the system. Thirdly, there is a particular opportunity to look at whether the TPS should be a separate organisation or effectively merged with the ICO. Fourthly, as a couple of speakers have mentioned, the ICO currently has the ability to fine offenders, but the reality is that one was fined in 2012 and three in 2013. I think that we all therefore want the threshold to be lowered. Whether the change is a legal or a practical one, nuisance callers should be fined on the basis of anxiety and stress as defined by the consumer. That gives the Minister four opportunities on which to respond.
	I conclude by returning to Mrs Jill Smith. The Minister kindly replied to my letter, stating that
	“we believe in greater enforcement and robust action rather than sweeping changes to the regulatory framework”.
	In an answer to a written question, he promised an action plan early in the new year. Today, we are indeed early-ish in the new year.

Edward Vaizey: Time for action.

Richard Graham: It is indeed time for action. I very much look forward to hearing more from the Minister about a robust action plan—I know that he cares and that he wants to solve this problem—so that Mrs Jill Smith and many others like her can look forward to a new year free from nuisance calls.

Pat Glass: Nuisance calls are probably the thing about which I receive most complaints over the year. If I look at the number of contacts I get from my constituents, I probably get more calls only in relation to badgers. Every time I go to a luncheon club or a supported living scheme, or anything where elderly people gather together, it seems as though getting nuisance calls is the No. 1 thing that they want to talk about. Two elderly constituents contacted me this week to tell me that they get such calls on average about once an hour.
	We heard earlier about the very worrying trend of calls that are made during the night. I do not know what it is like in other Members’ houses, but at 10 o’clock at night, if I am not in the Chamber for a debate or to vote, I am in bed. I am an early riser, and I like to be in bed at 10 o’clock. If I get a call after 10 o’clock, I am alarmed—I think, “Oh, what’s wrong? It’s my mother. It’s the grandkids.” That is how most of us feel if we get calls after 10 o’clock, so calls at 2.30 or 3.30 am involve an alarm factor. We have also heard about elderly constituents’ concerns about being confused or perhaps subject to falls after getting up in the middle of the night, so if people are getting calls at that time, it represents a worrying trend.
	My elderly constituents tell me that they do not like marketing calls or unsolicited texts, but that it is the silent calls that cause them the greatest alarm. Quite honestly, if people are living alone, such calls frighten them. I have received one or two silent calls myself and they are not pleasant.
	I sympathise with the Minister because the legislation is extremely complex, although I did not realise quite how complex it was until I heard the detailed speech made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart). I thought that I had a reasonable attention span, but I could not follow his description through to its conclusion. I intend to get hold of Hansard tomorrow because his contribution was incredibly helpful, not least because he gave the numbers to which people can report these matters. He gave a masterclass in how to take the House through a complex area of legislation and regulation. Until today, I was not entirely clear about who people should complain to.
	When I have asked constituents to get hold of a phone number so that I can refer it on, they often tell me that it is withheld. We also have to remember that people have incredibly busy lives. The Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), said that for everybody who makes a complaint, there will be 10 people who do not have the time to do so, but I think that the figure is probably closer to 50. When I receive these texts and get irritated by them, I think to myself that I will complain, but then life piles in and I find that I do not have the time.
	There appear to be problems involving enforcement and deterrence. The right hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) said that the people who commission nuisance calls are “careless”. He was absolutely right, as they could not care less, but they are not stupid, so they are clearly making a profit out of the practice. Even if the calls are illegal, they could not care less, because they continue to make profits. There does not seem to be any deterrent or enforcement that will make them stop.
	We have heard good suggestions of what the Government could do to deal with this problem, including from the Chair of the Select Committee and my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). However, I do not think that the problem will stop, so if it does not, we simply have to hit the companies hard in the pocket. We could name and shame companies. We saw what happened to companies such as Starbucks when the public heard about their attitude to paying tax in this country: people simply walked past and bought their coffee somewhere else. Naming and shaming companies in a way that would have an impact on their profits might be how to deal with the problem. If this is to be taken seriously, we need to hit the people at the top of these organisations and make an example of them.
	The current situation is complex and what we are doing is not working. Our constituents are being harassed on a daily basis. I am encouraged by the body language of the Minister because he is indicating that he will do something—that the time for talking is over and now is the time for action. I hope that the debate will give the Government the impetus they need to take action to prevent nuisance calls and protect our constituents, especially our elderly constituents.

Andrew Stunell: I apologise to the House for arriving a few minutes late at the start of the debate and to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) for missing a few minutes of his tour de force. I did catch the final 35 minutes, however, so I hope that I got the essence of it.
	I got out of my hon. Friend’s contribution and those of other Members that some of the stock responses and deflection tactics that are being used by different parts of the industry do not stand up to detailed inspection. The Minister has a duty to the House, when he responds to the debate, to say clearly and firmly that the Government acknowledge that and are prepared to take action.
	This is a troubling issue for my constituents. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter), my neighbour in Stockport, started to deal with this matter for his constituents, he asked me whether we could have a combined approach to support our constituents. We both organised petitions for residents of our constituencies to make their case to us, and the response that we got was overwhelming. People were fed up with nuisance calls—whether automated recordings, calls from foreign calls centres or silent calls. Whatever time of day or night they come, they are overwhelmingly unpopular. They create trouble and difficulty, and my goodness me, our constituents in Cheadle and Hazel Grove were ready to tell us about it.
	Last autumn, my hon. Friend and I presented to the Prime Minister at No. 10 a petition from the two constituencies asking for action to be taken. I understand that it is in the gift of No. 10 as to whether the Government will make a statement. I do not know whether the Minister will disclose that decision to us today, but I hope that the petition that we submitted will contribute to a positive answer from No. 10 very shortly.
	I wish to give the House a brief illustration of how pervasive nuisance calls are. During the conference season, I was away from home for five days. When I returned, my answer machine had 17 calls on it. On examination, 16 of them were nuisance calls—silent and pre-recorded calls. Some had a calling line identification, but universally, if there was CLI, it was a spoof or incorrect. Half those 16 calls were silent, and I can well understand that for people more vulnerable than I am, such as older people for whom the telephone is still something of a new contraption, such calls must be a really frightening experience. The Minister needs to take account of the evidence that exists, both anecdotal and in surveys.
	The all-party group’s report—I perhaps should declare that I was a member of the working party that produced it—said that, looking at all the evidence, there could not be fewer than 1 billion nuisance phone calls each year. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West cited another figure: according to the evidence that we received, 1 million people are employed in call centres. Taking those figures together, it means that each call centre operative makes 1,000 nuisance calls a year, which is a very small number—20 a week. I cannot believe that any call centre employs people to make only 20 calls a week, which prompts the question of whether that figure of 1 billion nuisance calls is right and how many calls made from such centres are not described as nuisance calls but instead produce a good result.
	When the group took evidence in our inquiry, I had the opportunity to speak to a representative of one of the major network operators, who offered me his estimate that at some times of day, a quarter of all the traffic carried on his network consisted of nuisance calls. I have no way of knowing the validity of that information, but it gives some idea of the industrial scale of what is going on and the impact that it can have on our constituents. It certainly has a big impact on the elderly and on my constituents, who have been keen to say so.
	In case it has not already become evident to the Minister, I want to tell him that there is a huge gap between best practice and normal practice. For instance, the rulebook states that if a silent call has inadvertently
	been made to a number, no subsequent silent call should be made to that number for another 72 hours. I do not believe for a moment that any call centre operates that 72-hour ban. It is incredible that they can, bearing in mind how many silent calls people receive on the same day, one after another. Silent calls are supposed to be not more than 3% of the total calls made by operators or call centres. It is difficult to believe that that is being complied with. If all call centres operated the 3% rule, 97% of calls would not be silent, but that is transparently not the case. The 72-hour rule and the 3% rule are not being obeyed.
	Calling line identification is verging on useless. Some companies phone with no identification and some have spoof identifications. I have had endless calls on my phone from 012345, 00000 and so on. Clearly, the system is not working in that respect.
	As other hon. Members have said, reporting problems is a nightmare. There is no simple system and there are multiple ways to complain. Who people phone up and what they are supposed to do depends on what kind of call they have suffered. Understandably, my constituents either do not know who they should call or have no confidence that anything will happen if they call. In evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, ICO staff said pretty much that there was little likelihood of an individual complaint resulting in any action against an operator.
	Several hon. Members have mentioned problems with TPS, which is widely bypassed and ignored by those who phone up. It is certainly not effective. I am on TPS, but that did not prevent the calls I received in that conference week. Essentially, it is a commercial service run by the Direct Marketing Association that operates on the basis of trust, without any practical teeth that will produce an outcome. It is also based on extremely old-fashioned technology, which means that it takes 28 days for the system to click and become effective after people have registered. That does not help large numbers of people, even assuming that the system works properly when it is activated.
	By way of conclusion, I want Government action. I want to see the action plan in spring—in civil service terminology, it is due shortly. When I was a Minister, I once asked for the definition of “shortly”. It took the civil servants several minutes to get over the laughter. I would enjoy hearing from the Minister, when he responds to the debate, when we can expect the action plan.

Edward Vaizey: May I quickly give the right hon. Gentleman my definition of “spring”? I have learned as a Minister that the definition of “spring” in Whitehall is February to November.

Andrew Stunell: The Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, has been sucked into the machine to an even greater extent than I had feared.
	I hope that, when we have the action plan, the Minister will say something about bringing the regulators together. The all-party group report makes the point that we could waste quite a lot of time physically uniting them in one organisation, but we need a joined-up regulatory system, with all the sources of information going into one place and with one group of people looking at whether there is a pattern in an area of activity so that we do not have the current fragmentation at the operating end of the regulatory system.
	I want the Government to say that the CLI service should be provided by all operators for free. I also want the Minister to say that Ofcom will be permitted to allow the blocking of rogue numbers by telecoms firms. That seems to me to be how to teach those people a lesson. The industry can get TPS working properly and quickly. There does not seem to be any reason why some of the better technological solutions should not be in place very quickly and working well. We also need a short code that will allow consumers—my constituents—to report nuisance calls of all kinds very quickly.
	I think that the Minister has got my point. I press him to go well beyond good intentions and to give us some serious delivery on a nagging problem that is driving my constituents mad. They are getting irritated; they are disturbed and angry. Some of them are vulnerable, and they are looking to this House and this Government to do something to relieve their concerns.

Cathy Jamieson: It is a pleasure to follow a number of excellent speeches. I was interested to hear the Minister give his definition of what “shortly” might mean. When I was a Minister in Scotland, I remember a civil servant telling me that “shortly” was “sooner than in due course”, but he was not prepared to commit to anything more than that.
	I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on enabling the debate to take place. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) on his excellent contribution, which provided all the technical detail and information on this important issue. Perhaps unusually for me, I will not be having a go at the Minister on this occasion. He has been helpful in bringing together the different organisations and the different parts of the regulatory system to try to deal with the issue.
	I was prompted to speak largely because of correspondence from constituents—I have taken an interest in the issue since arriving in this place because many constituents have made complaints to me—but also because of the excellent campaign run by The Sunday Post, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The wonders of modern technology are such that during the course of the debate I have been able to follow, via a Twitter feed, the views of The Sunday Post,andI am sure that many people will have taken a great interest in what hon. Members have said.
	Many people have asked why we cannot just have a simple mechanism—pressing a button or sending a text back—to deal with nuisance calls. Surely the wonders of technology that give us such excellent Twitter feeds should enable me simply to press the appropriate button if I decide—and heaven forfend that I should; this would never be the case—to block The Sunday Postand to hear no more from it. I therefore find it difficult to believe that there is not a way for people who do not want to receive nuisance calls to deal with them more efficiently and effectively.
	We have heard that many elderly people are often the victims of silent calls or nuisance calls, and they can be the people most distressed by them. The work undertaken by Age Concern Scotland, which was referred to, is important, as is the work of local authorities. We should
	expand on that work. However, it is not only elderly and vulnerable people who have to deal with nuisance calls, texts and faxes—for those who still operate fax machines. They are also a problem for business.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to calls which say that the Government want the business to know something. Those types of calls give real concern to the individuals receiving them, because they may not be sure whether they are a scam or something actually relating to Government policy. For example, energy efficiency is often talked about. Businesses will receive a text, fax or other form of information that implies that it is somehow linked to the Government when that is not the case.
	By way of illustration—this does not relate specifically to the debate, but I might come back to it at another time—a businessman in my constituency recently contacted me to say he had received something that looked like a Government publication giving him information on how to apply for grants, but when he signed up and paid almost £400, it turned out simply to be information he could have received from me, the business gateway or someone in the local authority’s economic development department, without parting with any cash. In such cases, as when elderly people and others sign up for things over the phone, when people discover it is a scam, they are often embarrassed to admit to it, and so do not come forward. I am sure there are many examples of businesses responding to these things and then discovering they were not what they purported to be.
	We have heard about the extreme complexity of the regulatory framework, and I want to mention offshore calls. I have recently answered, or attempted to answer, the phone in my home and either discovered that the number or information relates to a company operating in the UK but calling from offshore, or made that assumption because no information has been provided. I understand the difficulty with the complexity of the regulations, but none the less I hope the Government can address that problem.
	As constituents have also told me, it is easy enough for companies to receive these calls, but extremely difficult for them to call back and get hold of a person to complain to. Often they are advised to register online or to complain in writing, but it would be much simpler if the minute a call came in, they could press a button and send a message or immediately get through to someone and say, “Look, this has happened just now. What can you do about it?”
	Constituents have also complained about premium rate phone numbers. I know the Government are looking at that in relation to public services, but people often complain to me that when they call one of these numbers, they have to hang on for ages and press a series of buttons, only to be referred to a website at the end. Such things do not give people any confidence that the industry, or indeed Government and politicians—we also suffer these complaints—are taking it seriously enough. I hope the Minister will respond to that.
	Hon. Members have mentioned the number of calls to people who have taken out loans. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West gave some interesting examples. It will be interesting to hear how many more unsolicited approaches he gets from payday loan companies now that he has admitted to having used them on an
	experimental basis. For people already in difficulty, however, and who perhaps have health or mental health problems, to be pursued to that extent is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will take account of the suggestions of the Select Committee and hon. Members today, including the shadow Minister, who, for good reasons, could not stay for the full debate.
	If someone signs up and gives permission for such calls, that ought not to be ad infinitum, but to be reviewed after a while, in particular given the complexity of how people give permission. Sometimes, they might not realise exactly what they are signing up for and that they will be subject to a range of marketing from several different companies, not just the one company they are dealing with. Also, there is the difference between opting in and opting out. I am sure that all of us, at some stage, have failed to untick the box or have ticked the box at the wrong time and subsequently received a huge amount of information we did not want.
	We have heard helpful examples of progress being made—as with TalkTalk—but it is unacceptable that BT wants to introduce more charges, such as for the 1571 service and caller ID. For many elderly people using these services, the cost—even if only a couple of pounds on the phone bill—can be a considerable amount for them. Sometimes they fear the technology or do not trust it and they are worried, particularly if they have had experience of the TPS system, that the technology might not in itself solve the problem.
	We have had a useful debate, and I hope that the Government will take account of what has been said. I know from the Minister’s comments at various meetings and events that I have attended that he takes this issue seriously. Recalling his definition of spring, which stretches to November, I hope that he will be able to take action shortly and do something this winter, providing some comfort to the thousands of people who have signed the petitions, seen their MPs and written to the newspapers asking for action. I know that the Minister wants to see something happen; we now need to hear what it is going to be. We hope that it will be sooner rather than later. I end with a final reference to The Sunday Postbecause if the Minister can achieve that, it will be “the very dab”—exactly how The Sunday Post would put it.

Edward Vaizey: I am grateful for the chance to respond to the debate, which I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) on securing. It is worth noting the contributions of three hon. Members who are not present. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), whom the hon. Member for Edinburgh West mentioned, is co-chairing the all-party group on nuisance calls. When the date of this Back-Bench debate was changed, it meant he could not be here, but he has put a huge amount of work into the issue and would have liked to be present. For good reasons, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) cannot be here for the debate’s conclusion, but she made a powerful speech as Opposition spokesman.
	The presence of the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who was in his place earlier, was significant, because it showed that one
	of those rare, almost unheard of events had taken place—joined-up government. When the new Minister was appointed over Christmas, I reached out, made a nuisance call to him out of the blue and told him that I would be very pleased if he would engage with me on this issue. He certainly has engaged with me, and I look forward to working with him more, as he gets his feet under the desk. Joined-up government between the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is highly important. As many hon. Members have pointed out, this is a complex regulatory landscape, involving two regulators—Ofcom, for which my Department is responsible, and the Information Commissioner’s Office, for which my right hon. Friend’s Department is responsible. It is important for our two Departments to work together.
	We have heard a number of valuable contributions, not least from the hon. Member for Edinburgh West who opened the debate. Other contributors were the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) who is the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland who is the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), the hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) and, last but by no means least, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), who contacted me about this issue many months ago. She requested a meeting and has maintained her interest and her campaigning work on the issue.
	To put an end to any speculation from the outset—I know that hon. Members are on tenterhooks—let me say that the strategy document is ready to go. It was originally due to be published on 31 October. I discovered that if a Minister tells officials that a document will be published on a certain date, the work starts to crank up exponentially. I congratulate my officials on their excellent work over the period to hit that deadline. We were ready to publish then, but we decided to wait for the all-party group on nuisance calls to conduct its report because a lot of hard work had gone into it. We said that we would also wait for the Select Committee report, which came out at the beginning of December. Once those two reports had been published, we incorporated their findings in our strategy document, which then began its meander around Whitehall for clearance. One thing that we inherited from new Labour is the grid—the grid that sits in Downing street: the holy grid—and we are waiting for a slot in that grid, which, I assure Members, is harder than finding a slot at Heathrow. However, the document is ready to go, and I shall now reveal to Members what, broadly speaking, is in it.
	We all agree that nuisance calls are a menace. I was extremely grateful to some Members for saying that they sympathised with my position and recognised that I was working hard in trying to make an impact on the problem. They did not need to say that, and it was very kind of them to do so. I was also grateful to the Members who pointed out that the direct marketing industry is valuable to the UK economy. We must not throw the baby out with the bathwater—we must recognise that a legitimate industry is doing a legitimate job—but make no mistake: as is clear to all Members who have done so much work on the issue, nuisance calls are a scourge that needs to be tackled.
	The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland observed that the number of such calls seemed to have increased significantly. That is partly because it has become easier to report them, but I suspect that it is also due to the increase in the number of calls relating to payment protection insurance, which has, in a sense, been a unique phenomenon, in that it has provided an opportunity for—perhaps—the more careless members of the industry to seek ways of making an income.
	There are three categories of nuisance call. Both live, unsolicited marketing calls, when someone—a real person—rings up out of the blue, and automatic pre-recorded calls are covered by the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, and fall within the scope of the Information Commissioner. Silent and abandoned calls—automatic calling machines repeatedly make the calls, but when one picks up the receiver no one is there—are covered by Ofcom, which can tackle them by means of its powers to oppose the persistent misuse of networks under the Communications Act 2003. We have increased the maximum fine that Ofcom can impose for silent and abandoned calls from £50,000 to £2 million, and have given the Information Commissioner’s Office the opportunity to impose a fine of up to £500,000 for unsolicited calls and texts. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester mentioned my letter to him, in which I referred to the need for enforcement. The powers are there to make an impact, and since January 2012, Ofcom and the ICO have issued fines amounting to £2. 5 million.
	We have also sought to give Ofcom and the ICO a closer working relationship. I now regularly chair a round table that brings them together, along with representatives of telecoms companies and interested Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart).
	What more can we do? As a number of Members have pointed out, the legal threshold that the ICO must meet before it can issue a penalty is too high. It requires the ICO to demonstrate that a breach of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations would result in “substantial damage” or “substantial distress”. The ICO has argued that the threshold should be lowered, and has suggested a test involving
	“nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety”.
	I agree with the ICO that a lower threshold would generate more effective enforcement, and we are keen to legislate this year. That will be in the strategy document. There will have to be consultation on it, because it will require legislation.

Richard Graham: Is it on the grid?

Edward Vaizey: I do not know whether it is on the grid, but the announcement is governed by Downing street, and the legislation is governed by the Leader of the House.
	In order to improve the working relationship between Ofcom and the ICO we also want to make it possible for Ofcom to share the data it has with the ICO, which is not possible at the moment. We will introduce a statutory instrument. That order will be brought into force by the beginning of April. We will look at consent. That will be in the strategy document as well. Members have rightly pointed out that there is frustration with the telephone preference service but again the frustration
	partly arises from the fact that consumers may not realise they are giving consent and therefore effectively allowing the marketer to override the TPS.
	The PECR states that a marketing call cannot be made to a consumer who has registered with the TPS unless consent has been given. The ICO has updated its guidance on this issue, but I accept there is scope for greater clarity to help consumers make informed decisions. We are considering the scope for action in this area and once we have published the strategy document we will launch a hands-on consultation working with consumer groups, particularly Which?, which has been excellent in the area of nuisance calls, and our regulators to look at a practical way forward. Incredibly complicated regulations could inadvertently be brought in were we to introduce detailed regulations about when informed consent is given. If we are to change the regulations, it is important that we get them absolutely right and that they are clear and not confusing.
	Many Members have made the point that there is no silver bullet and I thought the Select Committee report was excellent on that. For example it is easy to say we should just merge the regulators, but when we look into the issues, we see the situation is much more complicated than that and we are much more likely to make more rapid progress by simply making the regulators work together.
	In a complex and fast-moving environment, it is also important that we look at what measures we can take without legislation. With developments in telecoms technology, it is now easier and cheaper than ever before to make calls. That is good news for consumers, but rogue companies can also utilise the same technology to circumvent regulation and bombard us with unsolicited calls and texts. We therefore need to look at not just legal measures, but industry collaboration, technical standards, and support from telecoms providers.
	We also want improved information and guidance for consumers, to enable them to register complaints on regulators’ websites more easily and also access information about steps they can take to deal with nuisance calls. This information is available, and the guides have been viewed more than a quarter of a million—or perhaps I should say 250,000, as I think that is the new parliamentary expression pioneered by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday—times and are clearly proving to be a valuable tool. Additionally, as a result of our engagement with the consumer organisation Which? it has now developed a user-friendly page on its website whereby consumers are automatically directed to the right place to access information as well as to make complaints. In addition to issuing fines, the ICO “names and shames” persistent offenders on its website so that consumers are better informed about those who break the law.
	I mentioned earlier the upswing in the number of nuisance calls. I think that has been generated by the payment protection insurance sector. There is an alphabet soup of regulators with a role in this area, and that sector is regulated by the claims management regulation unit. Through our engagement with it, it has put more resources into tackling the problem of unsolicited calls and text messages to ensure that it can move more quickly to investigate and take enforcement action. It is working actively with the ICO, Ofcom and other relevant
	bodies to detect and punish those involved. I welcome the action it has taken and continues to take against claims management companies that fail to comply with the rules. From June of last year it started to publish the names of companies under investigation or subject to recent enforcement action. Between July and September 2013, it conducted 41 audits, issued 25 warnings, commenced 11 investigations, cancelled 109 licences and visited 407 claims management companies.
	When introducing measures it is important that Government start to think about what impact they might have on nuisance calls. For example, the ban on referral fees in personal injury cases appears to have had the knock-on effect of reducing the volume of marketing calls to potential clients, because claims management companies can no longer receive a fee for referring client details. The claims management regulation unit is actively policing the ban on referral fees, in addition to the ban on claims management companies offering financial rewards.

Mark Lazarowicz: The measures that the Minister is outlining are welcome. We are dealing here with nuisance calls, one category of which is the downright scam, which regulations might not be able to cope with. Does he acknowledge the importance of publicity from his Department and perhaps from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in dealing with scam calls? I have heard examples of people getting phone calls from overseas selling them bogus computer insurance; I am sure we have all handled that kind of case. Those scams need to be publicised and people need to be warned about them. Does he agree that such publicity is important in dealing with not only nuisance calls but scams, and that continued efforts need to be made by Ofcom and by the Government in that regard?

Edward Vaizey: Yes I do; it is important for consumers to be aware. Organisations such as Which? and official regulators such as Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office are great sources of advice on where scams are under way. They are often organised, all-pervasive scams that touch hundreds of thousands of people, and it is important that clear information on them should be disseminated to people as quickly as possible.
	Taking that intervention has given me the opportunity to notice that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark has snuck into the Chamber. He might not be aware that I mentioned him earlier in the debate, when I said how grateful I was to be working with him. For his edification, I should say that I also pointed out that he and I had embarked on an almost unique experiment called joined-up government to see whether our two Departments could make an impact by working more closely together. But I sense that the House is tiring of that joke. The mood of the House tells me that I should move on.
	I also want to talk about call blocking. Market solutions are available for consumers wishing to block calls at individual level, and I am pleased that network-level solutions are now also being considered by telecoms providers and other companies. That is an important
	development. Phones with call-blocking technology are available for the consumer to buy and use in the home, but network-level blocking is also very effective.
	Almost all Members who have spoken in the debate have raised their concern that consumers will be charged for services that could help them to tackle nuisance calls—in particular, caller line identification, call barring and anonymous caller rejection. This is clearly a commercial decision for companies, but it is important that consumers are aware of whether those services are being charged for and how much they cost, so that they can look into which telecoms companies are offering the best deal.
	In that regard, I am pleased that, at the end of last year, Ofcom published a table setting out the cost of such services provided by the main telecoms companies. I hope that that will make the companies realise that this is a service that their consumers value. I welcome TalkTalk’s announcement yesterday that it is to become the first company to make all its landline privacy calling features free of charge, and I hope that the other telecoms companies will have noted the clear, strong steer from Members in the debate today that charging for those services is not a good idea.
	Hon. Members have also mentioned international calls. It is particularly frustrating when nuisance calls are made from abroad, and it is therefore good news that we are working with BT on finding a way to display incoming international numbers, enabling consumers to make informed decisions. Hon. Members might be angry with BT for charging for caller line identification, but I hope that they will congratulate the company on updating its telephone exchanges to enable that service to encompass international calls. That update is expected to take place after the summer of this year.
	We have also been working with the telecoms providers on call tracing. It is sometimes difficult to identify who has made a call, perhaps because the number is unavailable. But we have asked the Network Interoperability Consultative Committee, which brings together all the major telecoms companies, to develop new industry standards for call tracing between networks, as well as revising the current rules on how caller line identifications are passed between networks and presented to consumers. The new call tracing standard was published at the end of last year, and it will simplify and increase the likely success of the process.
	We also face other technological challenges, for example, from technology that allows numbers to be “spoofed”. Companies may wish to give customers a local number to call rather than the number of their national centre and so this technology can be used for legitimate reasons, but it can also be misused for nuisance calls. So, again, we are working with regulators and industry to see how that can be addressed. We are also working with the regulators and telecoms providers to explore technical opportunities to make it more difficult to misuse caller line identification in that way, and to help identify companies that are doing so. The spoofing issue has an international dimension, and last autumn Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office announced that they would be joining forces with regulators from Australia, Canada and the United States to tackle spoofing.
	The issue of nuisance texts has been raised during the debate. Mobile operators, the Global System for Mobile communications Association—GSMA—and the ICO are working together to allow mobile operators to share
	their information to help block nuisance texts, no matter which network they emerge from, as well as to enable the regulator to take more effective enforcement action. The GSMA spam text reporting service enables consumers to make a report by using a short code, “7726”. Such reporting makes a difference. To give just one example, we have been told by the mobile operator Three that it suspends thousands of pay-as-you-go accounts each month in its efforts to tackle nuisance texts. As in many cases, the expertise to tackle such issues lies in the industry, which is why it is so important that we continue to work with it. The marketing industry also needs to play its part. Last October, the Telephone Preference Service launched its accreditation scheme, “TPS assured”, which focuses on improving the best practice of companies using these techniques. That is, in effect, a kitemark for call centres; it allows companies that do adhere to the Direct Marketing Association guidelines to get an industry accreditation that they are TPS assured and to use it in their marketing material.
	A lot of hon. Members have mentioned their concerns about the effectiveness of the TPS. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, some things were beyond the control of the TPS and it is up to the Government, working with consumer groups, to look at the issue of consent. We need to have clear and specific information to guide our thinking on the effectiveness of the TPS. The TPS is governed by Ofcom, although Ofcom has contracted out its management to the DMA. Ofcom is undertaking research on the effectiveness of the TPS and that work will conclude in the spring. We expect Ofcom to publish its recommendations in the summer.
	Let me touch on some of the other actions being taken. Regulators, the ICO and Ofcom sent a joint letter to about 170 organisations reminding them of the need to ensure compliance with the rules. The ICO has engaged with more than 20 organisations responsible for making nuisance calls through compliance meetings and has monitored their progress over a period of three months. As a result, there was a substantial reduction in the number of complaints about those 20 companies. Ofcom has also taken informal action against 25 organisations. As a result, complaints linked to telephone numbers used by 16 of them stopped and the number of complaints against five others fell significantly—four cases are ongoing. Again, I wish to assure hon. Members that although the fines get the headlines, a lot of behind-the-scenes work is going on, with both Ofcom and the ICO engaging with organisations that attract a persistent and high number of complaints.
	I am also very aware of the concerns raised by the StepChange Debt Charity in its October report “Got their number”, which highlighted the serious consequences that can arise from nuisance calls for people who are financially vulnerable. That report notes that there are many factors that feed into this issue, including the apparent ease with which people’s personal data can be gathered and sold on. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland also mentioned her concerns about personal data. Again, the issue highlights the need for my Department to work more closely with the Ministry of Justice. There should be a joined-up approach to data management in this area.
	I share the concerns that regulators should be able to take greater action, and I hope that the information-sharing legislation that we will introduce as well as the proposals
	in the joint action plan published by Ofcom and the ICO will lead to more action in this area. I take this opportunity to welcome StepChange’s efforts to provide clear advice for consumers and also its willingness to promote Ofcom’s guidance on nuisance calls.
	As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I welcome the interest that has been shown in this issue. We have an excellent report from the all-party group on nuisance calls. Both Backbench debates today have highlighted the effective work that all-party groups can undertake. We also have an excellent report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. We have also had a number of private Member’s Bills, parliamentary questions and sustained and helpful interest from a whole range of Members.
	I hope that we have shown that we have some clear proposals, which we will publish once they have received clearance in the Whitehall write-around. We expect that to involve two pieces of minor legislation, which should make a significant impact in terms of allowing Ofcom and the ICO to share data and of reducing the threshold for what constitutes a nuisance call. Further work will commence on the complex issue of consent, which is a live issue. It is an important matter. Indeed, the chairman of the all-party group challenged me at a meeting yesterday about what action would be taken after the report was published. I made a twofold commitment to him. I will continue my wider round-table discussions every three months, bringing together all the relevant stakeholders, telecoms companies, Members of Parliament, regulators and others. I also committed that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and I would meet him once a month for an update on where we are on making progress on action against nuisance calls. As has been said by several Members during this debate, the time for talking is over and the time for action has arrived. In order to continue to make an impact, it is important that I am held to account and that regular meetings take place.

Dawn Primarolo: Mr Crockart, you can make the concluding remarks. You are on the clock. There is a time limit of three minutes.

Michael Crockart: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I presume that your words are in reaction to my earlier speech.
	This debate felt like a consolation prize after the fall of my private Member’s Bill last year, but it has been an excellent debate, which has aired many of the issues that we identified during our all-party parliamentary inquiry. It is a complex area. Although my speech was described as a tour de force, there were many other points that were raised by others that I did not even mention, such as charging for caller ID, the effectiveness of the Telephone Preference Service, the EU directive, the exponential growth in the number of calls and the sense of a structure for regulators.
	The hon. Member for North West Durham (Pat Glass) described my short speech as a master class. I think the subtext was that I had bored her into submission, and I apologise for that. She introduced the idea of naming and shaming, which is already happening, but perhaps needs to happen even more.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell) missed the first five minutes of my speech. I am happy to repeat them for him later. He brought up the subject of spoofing, and talked about the response from constituents. He made the point that people are suffering quietly, and not complaining about the issue, but when they are asked it is clear how angry they are.
	The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), in attempting to steal my headlines, mentioned the Sunday Post a number of times, so I will trump her and mention the fact that it is @PoliticalYeti on Twitter. It has 602 followers—I am sure that that will help them a little bit. She contrasted the ability of the companies to make calls with the inability to make complaints by phone, which bothers me very greatly. She mentioned my alter ego, Boris Peep, so perhaps I should finish by giving an update. An organisation called Shopachecksms-uk—the wage day advance company has obviously passed or sold on my alter ego’s details—has offered me a cash loan of £500 delivered to my door. I want to make it clear in Hansard that I do not need it, thank you very much.
	I thank the Minister. He is absolutely engaged and we have a good ministerial team that will be able to move things forward. We have had action on some things and not so much on others, but the best thing is the commitment.
	This is a complex area, but it is clear that there is willingness across the House to see action. I am confident that we will see that, but I urge the ministerial team to be bold and ambitious, as such action has the benefit that it will also be popular.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered nuisance calls.

POST OFFICE SERVICES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Karen Bradley.)

John Robertson: I thank the speakers in the previous debate for giving me some extra time for this important debate. We have had many debates on post office services, and there will continue to be more unless we manage to solve the problems of the Post Office.
	Post offices play a significant role in all our communities—80% of people in Scotland say that post offices play an important role in the local community. They act as a vital service and should be seen as community hubs. Sadly, rather than nurturing those community beacons, the Government have done a lot to undermine the network and decrease the services that it provides.
	There are about 11,800 post offices in the UK and customers rely heavily on them, especially the most vulnerable in our society—the elderly, those on low incomes and the disabled. The universal service obligation and other services are so ingrained in our society that I fear the loss of them. For example, 43% of elderly people use a post office to access cash. People take it for granted that they can walk into a post office and deliver items within the UK and across the world. We need to act now to keep the Post Office thriving, otherwise we might be at risk of losing that vital institution.
	The announcement by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) in November that additional funding had been allocated to complete the network transformation programme was a vote of no confidence. If the Government had delivered on the front office for Government work that had been promised, which I shall speak more about later, that £640 million would not be needed.

Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the transformation programme is working against many small post offices? In particular, the Post Office appears to be targeting some offices and persuading the postmaster to retire so that it can move into a local shop and downgrade the service.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right, and I shall come on to some of those points as we move on. There is no doubt that larger post offices—and even sub-post offices, for that matter—are shutting. When I spoke at a conference for sub-postmasters from Glasgow and Ayrshire, they let me know exactly how they felt about the Government’s position, and, for that matter, that of the previous Government. At least they were there to help and they offered some examples that I will mention later.
	Although the Government will have spent around £2 billion on network transformation, we still will not have an attractive model for current or future operators. The money will have been used to subsidise exit from the network, as the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) said, rather than to make the network sustainable in the long term. That is of great concern to the many people
	who rely on post offices. We should be looking at making the Post Office better, rather than, as I suspect, making it ready for privatisation.
	The sale of Royal Mail was of course resisted by the Opposition. Last week’s news that its share price was £5.67—£2.37 above the Government’s offer price, which raised just £3.3 billion—was disappointing. It was an ideological move, not a financially sensible or thought-through one. The separation of the Post Office and Royal Mail has added millions of pounds in costs to the Post Office due to loss of synergies. No other postal administration in a developed economy has separate letters and retail businesses.
	The sale has now been done, but we must still consider Royal Mail in our strategy for the future of the Post Office. Just under 40% of Post Office revenues come from mail, so it is a significant part of the business. I was glad that, in January 2012, the Government caved into pressure and signed the 10-year inter-business agreement between Royal Mail and the Post Office, but there is no guarantee beyond 2022. The position is also not secure for the next 10 years, as the Minister’s own Department has said that the contract allows for changes in commercial circumstances and contains provision for a review of the agreement terms after five years. The 10-year agreement would therefore appear to be for only five years, but hopefully the next Government will be of a different colour and will put right some of these short-term ideological decisions.
	It is a real concern that Royal Mail might not continue to support the post office network. The loss of that contract would seriously undermine the Post Office’s integrity as a mail delivery service. Were that to happen, people would lose confidence in the institution and the future of many post offices would be at risk, especially the largely loss-making ones in rural areas, such as the one represented by the hon. Member for Angus. Privatisation is a risk to Post Office services and we need more guarantees for the decades to come.
	A post office is a place where people can go to fill in Government forms or to pay for Government services. It is important for both customers and employees that the Government continue to give the Post Office sufficient work. This Government announced in 2010 that post offices would become the “Front Office for Government”, but actions speak louder than words. They promised to give post offices £466 million of Government work, but post offices are currently gaining only £130 million from Government business.
	I am sure that the Minister will say that the Post Office has won all the Government contracts it has bid for, but those were contracts it already had, not new ones. No new major services have been awarded to post offices, and the National Federation of SubPostmasters has stated that the few that have been introduced are for one-off transactions that are available in only a small number of post offices. Dangerous precedents have been set by not awarding Government contracts, and the future of the Post Office is in jeopardy as a result.
	Linked to that, we need to ensure that post offices are not disadvantaged compared with other methods of using Government services. For example, if I wanted to pay my road tax online, I could bring up all the details—whether my car had its MOT and insurance, for example—via an online portal. I would not need to go looking for documents, as the information would already be on the system. However, until very recently, post offices could
	check only a car’s MOT, so people would have to bring in their insurance documents. It is clear that those who could choose to use the internet over having that inconvenience would do so. After all, who wants to have to carry around their documentation to ensure that they get their road tax? Thankfully, in this case, somebody has seen sense, so post offices can now check insurance as well, but the internet was well ahead on that, and that should be lesson for future online services. Post offices do not need to have an advantage—in fact, sub-postmasters tell me that they do not want it—but they should have at least a level playing field. People should be able to use the post office to access Government services with the same ease as on the internet. The decision not to award the green giro contract to the Post Office was another example of how the future of the institution—
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we have reached the moment for a procedural motion, after which I shall ask him to resume his speech.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Karen Bradley.)

Dawn Primarolo: I am sorry to have interrupted you mid-flow, Mr Robertson.

John Robertson: That is quite all right, Madam Deputy Speaker; you are in charge, after all.
	The decision not to award the green giro contract to the Post Office was another key example of how the importance and value to people of the institution’s future was not even considered. The move was widely condemned by charities, which highlighted the fact that it would affect the elderly and vulnerable the hardest. Andy Burrows of Consumer Focus said:
	“research suggests that people, particularly those on a low income, value the security and privacy that post offices provide.”
	There is a real necessity for post offices that cannot be measured by numbers. When we think about the use of post offices, such matters should be considered, but it seems that in this case they were not.
	Such a thing is also relevant when we talk about the Post Office’s announcement last year that it is to franchise several Crown post offices. There is a lot of concern, particularly among the vulnerable people I have mentioned, that certain services will no longer be easily available to local people, leading to an inferior service for our constituents and the loss of one-to-one help from specially trained and committed post office staff. We must also bear in mind the livelihoods of hard-working staff in Crown post offices. Post Office Ltd appears to have handled this very badly through a lack of consultation with staff, unions and key stakeholders, which resulted in a strike. About 800 jobs are at risk due to franchising, but that does not seem to have been considered during the decision-making process. Have the Government learned from this and how will the Minister proceed with franchising? Can she explain why the Crown branch section of the network should receive no public funding at all and yet hit break-even by April 2015 when other sections of the network will continue to receive public funding after this date? Many Crown branches are in
	the poorest and most disadvantaged parts of the country. A more realistic timetable would balance the need to protect services and jobs with financial sustainability.
	We should be thinking about how we could increase the number of Government services available in post offices. Many people prefer to carry out transactions with the UK Government, devolved Administrations and local authorities online. Crucially, however, those who do not have the internet are the most vulnerable. Some 53% of people who have never used the internet have a disability. Around 37,000 people on low incomes in Scotland have never used the internet, while only 33% of adults over 65 have the internet in their home. These people need another option, and post offices are a clear choice: 43% of over-65s use a post office at least once a week, as well as 37% of people with disabilities and 31% of those in the D and E socio-economic groups.
	It is also much more difficult for such people to move on to other ways of accessing services. The post office could act as a one-stop shop for people to sort out all these services in one go. Post offices are the natural home for local government services, and that approach could save money, improve public services and increase post offices’ footfall, although it would require co-ordinated work between local authorities and devolved Administrations. If the Government are so committed to making the Post Office the front line of Government, what is the Minister going to do to encourage councils and devolved Administrations to transfer their contracts over?
	We should also look at widening the range of services provided by post offices. We were hugely disappointed that our plans for a people’s bank were abandoned in 2010. Post offices provide local access to cash and banking services, and that is particularly important in rural areas and areas such as those in my constituency with high levels of elderly people. The potential of such services is not being realised. Post offices should have full access to all high street bank accounts, but some banks have not been forthcoming.
	In the long term, the possibility of a state-backed bank at the post office should be explored. There is evidence that that could be of great benefit to the Post Office, as New Zealand Post has seen its profits surge by nearly 70% thanks to its financial services arm, Kiwibank. Such a bank could also be massively beneficial in combating payday loan companies and high-cost doorstep lending by being linked to credit unions and providing affordable credit directly to the communities that our post offices serve.
	The post offices of our communities need to be saved. They provide vital services, the reduction of which is of great concern to workers and the vulnerable people who rely on their post office. Action on the idea of a front office for Government is lacking when we need it most, and there has been no initiative from this Government to widen the impact of post offices. We need action, and we need it fast if we want to save this national institution, rather than let it be sold off for a quick buck like Royal Mail.

Dawn Primarolo: In calling Minister Jenny Willott to reply, may I put on record my congratulations to her, because I believe that this is the first time that she has spoken from the Dispatch Box? I welcome her.

Jennifer Willott: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Having not been allowed to speak in this Chamber for two years as a Government Whip, it is a little surreal to be at the Dispatch Box.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) on securing this debate on an important subject. Despite the lack of Members present, the issue comes up regularly, and on most occasions a significant number of Members want to discuss the critical role that post offices play in all our local communities. The post office is much more than just a commercial entity. As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is important to hundreds of thousands of small businesses, which rely on it every day, as well as to the millions of customers who use the network for a range of services. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that post offices are particularly crucial to elderly residents, those on low incomes and the disabled, who make particularly good use of them in our communities.
	In November 2010, we announced a funding package of the historic amount of £1.34 billion to guarantee the size of the network until 2015 and to end the closure programmes run by the hon. Gentleman’s Government, which led to the closure of 7,000 branches under the previous Administration. In November 2013, we announced our continued support of the network with a further £640 million to secure and continue its modernisation until 2018. That makes clear the Government’s commitment to the post office and its future success. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman has said, that recent investment is a vote of confidence in the post office network and it is helping to move it to a more sustainable and secure long-term future.

Michael Weir: I understand what the Minister is saying and I think we all appreciate the money going into the transformation programme, but many small sub-postmasters in my constituency are concerned because they feel that they are being pressurised by the Post Office to give up their businesses, take extra redundancy or move to a local model that they feel is unsustainable. That does not seem to be a sensible way to pressurise people who have run post offices successfully for many years.

Jennifer Willott: I cannot comment on the operational procedures of the Post Office, which is a separate entity, but the Government are very clear that we want to maintain 11,500 branches in the post office network across the country. That means ensuring that we maintain a branch in all communities that currently have branches, and the level of knowledge and expertise that exists among many sub-postmasters, who are extremely well embedded in their communities and extremely well known and trusted by members of their local community. That is one of the elements that make the post office so important in many of our communities, especially in rural or more deprived areas, where many people depend heavily on the local sub-postmaster and the post office branch.

Michael Weir: I do not want to labour the point, but experienced postmasters are being encouraged to give up and businesses are going to a local shop, on the post
	office local model, that generally offers fewer services than existing post offices. I appreciate that the Minister has said that the Post Office is independent, but Government money—taxpayers’ money—is being used to achieve the changes.

Jennifer Willott: We are trying to ensure that the post office network is sustainable into the future. We cannot subsidise at historical levels. The previous Government’s way to tackle the problem was just to close post office branches, with significant losses. There were many losses in my constituency, as I am sure there were in those of other hon. Members in the Chamber.
	This Government have taken a different decision, which is to look at different models to ensure that we can maintain post office services in all communities across the country. Services delivered in particular communities may have to change to ensure that they are viable, but it is incredibly important that we have post office outreach in communities across the country, and that we do not see any repetition of the previous Labour Government’s closure programme.

John Robertson: The point that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) and I are trying to make to the Government is that post offices supply a service to people who need that service. We do not need a downgrading of the existing service, but it appears likely that the Government’s project will downgrade post offices to such an extent that people will wonder what the point is of having them in the first place.

Jennifer Willott: I could not disagree more with the hon. Gentleman. The vast majority of services available in post office branches across our communities will still be available. I cannot remember the exact figures—I hope that he will forgive me—but well over 90%, perhaps even 95%, of the services that people can currently access in their branches will still be available under the new models. There will still be every reason for people to carry on using their post offices, which will serve their communities in exactly the same way: the model will be slightly different, but they will provide just as vital a service to members of our communities as they currently do.
	The £2 billion of funding that has now been approved by the Government will allow post offices to invest in transforming and modernising the network and helping to ensure the long-term sustainability that we all agree is absolutely critical. Despite what the hon. Gentleman said in his speech, the new models are attractive. I understand that he and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) both have concerns, but the models are attractive to those running post office branches. Some 2,500 sub-postmasters have already converted, or have signed contracts to convert, their branches to one of the new operating models. They have received investment to modernise and improve their branches, which will bring benefits not just to them in running their businesses, but to the consumers they serve and the communities in which they are based, including much longer operating hours, shorter queues and more attractive branch layouts.

John Robertson: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but perhaps we can solve the whole problem. Why does she not come up to Glasgow and meet the
	same sub-postmasters that I have spoken to? Let me assure her that what she says is not what they are telling me. She can come and see for herself.

Jennifer Willott: I have met the National Federation of SubPostmasters. I represent Cardiff Central, and I have spoken to my local sub-postmasters. I appreciate that this is clearly a period of change that will be very unnerving for many sub-postmasters, particularly for those who have to change how they operate their business, but a significant amount of investment is available for those who want to carry on and to sign contracts to change to a new form of business. They are getting a lot of support from the Government. Others might want to leave the network or to retire, including those who have run businesses for a long time, and there is support for them as well, but it is important to recognise that many sub-postmasters are happy to alter their properties and to change to the new model.
	Customers are getting significant benefits from the new models. Across the network, there are an additional 34,000 opening hours a week, which is equivalent to 700 more traditional post offices. The programme of investment will see the modernisation and protection of all branches by 2018, ensuring that every community and customer that relies on access to a post office today will continue to have access to post office services in the future.
	The Government have ensured that all sub-postmasters can benefit from the investment. For the first time, a dedicated fund has been set up for post office branches that are important to the communities they serve, but where one of the new models would not be viable. That is an issue in large, remote rural areas, such as those in Scotland, where the post office is often the last shop in the village, as it were. The community fund to ensure that those post offices are kept open is a real departure. It will protect those branches well into the future and ensure that people have access to post office services. That is particularly important in areas where the post office provides an important service to more vulnerable consumers.

Michael Weir: I thank the Minister for giving way yet again; I do not want to push my luck too far. I remember taking this matter up with the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) when she announced the fund. The fund is for doing work on the post office to make it better, but that is not the difficulty in many of these very small post offices. The difficulty is that the postmaster’s income is simply insufficient. Postmasters want to keep going, but there is nothing in the fund to give them an uplift in their income to help the post office survive. The fund is for physical changes to the post office, which is not the issue at most of the post offices we are discussing.

Jennifer Willott: I will come on to talk about income and the services that we are supporting in post offices to ensure that they are viable.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow North West spoke about Crown post offices. As he mentioned, the funding package that was set out in 2010 required the Post Office to eliminate its substantial losses. In 2012-13, £37 million of losses were incurred by the 373 branches
	that made up the Crown segment of the network. It is a key part of the Post Office’s strategy to make the network sustainable in the long term. The Government support the business in delivering that strategy. The current losses of the Crown network contribute a third of the losses incurred by the network as a whole. That is clearly unsustainable. No business, including the Post Office, can maintain a situation in which its high street branches cost substantially more to run than they bring in.
	As part of its strategy to eliminate the unsustainable losses, the Post Office identified about 70 branches where there is no prospect of eliminating the losses at a local level under the current structure. In those locations, it is seeking a suitable retail partner to take on the operation of the branch under a franchise arrangement. The Post Office has made it clear that under each franchise proposal, the full range of current post office services, including the more complex transactions such as passport applications and identity services, will continue to be available in close proximity to the existing Crown branch. In the event that a suitable retail partner cannot be found, Post Office Ltd has given a commitment that a post office service will be retained in the area. I hope that what I have said reassures the hon. Gentleman that communities will not lose these vital local services.

John Robertson: The hon. Lady has not reassured me at all, I am afraid. Some of the Crown post offices that are closing are in areas where people simply cannot get about. There is no transport to get to where the new post office is because the bus services have been cut. How are those people supposed to get to the facilities that they need? They cannot go online because they do not have a computer and they cannot afford one.

Jennifer Willott: The Post Office operates to the strict criteria that 90% of the population must live within a mile of a post office and 95% within three miles. Although there may be some changes to the exact buildings in which branches are provided, as I said, services including the more complex ones available at Crown branches will still be available in the area. We are maintaining the access criteria so that more than nine out of 10 people will live within a mile of a post office. We recognise that more vulnerable members of the community in particular will find it hard to travel longer distances to access services, so we are ensuring that they are maintained locally.
	The investment that is being made is helping to ensure that an independent Post Office will remain a strong and long-term partner for Royal Mail—that is another issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. A transformed network will offer Royal Mail and the many companies, Government Departments and agencies with which the Post Office works better access to customers than ever before, which is crucial to winning new contracts and retaining existing ones.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the decision to separate the Post Office from Royal Mail. Far from being a mistake, it has allowed the Post Office to focus on its own priorities and needs. It is important to recognise that the two companies are very different. Royal Mail is a logistics company whose business is collecting, sorting and delivering mail. Although we can access Royal Mail services at post offices, the Post Office is different. In
	addition to mail services, it provides access to a wide range of Government services, from pension and benefit payments to passport check and send services and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency motoring services, all the way down to fishing rod licences. It also provides access to a wide range of financial services products, from savings accounts to mortgages, insurance and foreign exchange. It is now piloting a range of current accounts. Separation is allowing the Post Office to focus on its business and make the right decisions in the long-term interests of its staff, sub-postmasters and customers.
	I recognise, as I think we all do, the importance of the Post Office’s relationship with Royal Mail. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, prior to separation the two companies negotiated and signed a long-term commercial agreement. It was a 10-year agreement, the longest permissible at the time, and ensured that Royal Mail services would continue to be offered at post offices until 2020. That cemented the long-term relationship between the two businesses. As the post office network modernises and the parcels market continues to grow, the relationship will only get stronger. Indeed, Royal Mail’s chief executive has said that it is “unthinkable” that the two companies will not always have a close relationship. I am reassured that the relationship will be maintained long into the future.
	It is important to remember that the relationship is equally important for both businesses. The Post Office benefits from a continuing commercial relationship with the largest postal operator in the UK, and Royal Mail benefits from exclusive access to the largest retail network in the UK and the millions of customers who use post offices every week.
	Alongside its work for the Royal Mail, the Post Office is making good progress on its ambition to become a front office for government. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out—slightly dismissively, if I may say so—the Post Office has won every Government contract that it has bid for in the past two and a half years. That is a notable achievement that should not be underestimated. The contracts have been secured in highly competitive markets against fierce competition, and the Post Office’s success represents a vote of confidence in the business, in the Government’s funding and, more importantly, in the thousands of highly skilled postmasters and post office staff who deliver the services every day. That shows the regard in which they are held.
	The contracts that have been won include the vital cross-government front office framework contract, which was led by the DVLA and won by the Post Office in 2012. It has extended the Post Office’s contract with the DVLA and broadened it into new areas. Because it is a framework contract, it also means that other Government agencies can contract more easily with the Post Office and deliver value for money to the taxpayer. The contract is already in use by Her Majesty’s Passport Office, which sees in it an opportunity to modernise the passport check and send service. With a stable and modernising network, the Post Office is well placed to build on those successes.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman and all other Members who are in the Chamber will support me in encouraging Government Departments and agencies, local government bodies and, as he said, the devolved Administrations to seek out new opportunities to work with the Post Office.
	That includes new and emerging digital and identity markets, but also counter services. As he has said, branch security is important to so many Post Office and Government customers.
	The Post Office has shown time and again the benefits it can bring to the Government in driving value for money for the taxpayer and in improving the accessibility of Government services, including to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups across the UK. That has brought many benefits to the Post Office. Additional new work will be crucial in helping to ensure the network’s long-term future.
	However, I want to be clear that, in accordance with EU procurement regulations, the Government cannot simply award contracts to the Post Office or, for that matter, to any other company. We must secure suppliers through an open and competitive tender process. That ensures fairness, drives innovation and delivers value for money for taxpayers, which is important in these times. That the Post Office is winning contracts in such circumstances shows that it meets those competitive criteria and does an excellent job.
	There is more to the Post Office than mail and Government services—the hon. Gentleman highlighted that. The company has been growing well in new areas in recent years and is now one of the leading providers of financial and telephony services in the UK. Growth in the Post Office’s award-winning financial services business under this Government has made it one of the leading challengers to the high street banks. Post Office’s 3 million customers have deposited more than £17 billion in a variety of savings products. Customers rely on the Post Office for insuring their homes and holidays. It also helps them to get on or move up the property ladder with the range of mortgages it has available. Recently, the Post Office’s current account pilot was extended and is now available in more than 100 branches.
	The Post Office acknowledges the important role its network plays in local communities. The business is already in conversation with the Association of British Credit Unions and the credit union sector to explore how they can work together to reach more families and give access to credit union services in more communities. I am sure hon. Members welcome that.
	The Post Office remains committed to ensuring that communities continue to be able to access cash and banking services—the hon. Gentleman highlighted that important issue. Ninety-five per cent. of UK current accounts are available over the post office counter. With the support of the Government, the Post Office is continuing to work with the one remaining high street bank—Santander—that does not offer this service. Those services are important in ensuring local convenient access to cash, particularly, as he said, for the communities that have been left with no high street branch. Unfortunately, that is many of our communities in the UK.
	In conclusion, I am confident that the hon. Gentleman can see that the Government believe strongly in the future of the Post Office and that we are working hard to ensure its future success. We are investing in modernising the network. Under this Government, the Post Office is flourishing. Customers are benefiting from longer opening hours at improved branches. The company is winning new contracts and providing its customers with an increased range of services. The Government are laying the
	foundations for the long-term, sustainable and successful future of the Post Office. Hon. Members agree that it is essential for our communities that the Post Office continues to thrive in the years to come.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.